Total Posts:180|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why I Don't Believe In Evolution

Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time. While they do vary they do so within limits. As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new, furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory. Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.
As we (should) know, fallacious arguments do not necessarily have false conclusions, but they are questionable.

In the case of ToE, there is a rather large accumulation of fallacious evidence, and competing theories are rather weakly represented, still, fallacious arguments do remain fallacious no matter how high the stack of fallacious evidence.
The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

A very critical part of the fossil record, is a lack of fossils. The 'black swan' fallacy.
There is also circumstantial DNA 'evidence', that is far from conclusive..
The other critical support for ToE is endorsement by the Scientistific community. An appeal to authority, plan and simple.

Remove these two pieces of 'evidence' (using the term loosely), and you are not left with much. Remove all of the fallacious 'evidence', and the only logical thing to do is reject it.

I have seen arguments on this board that "fallacious evidence" is not evidence (in the scientific sense). If those people would be honest, they should reject ToE, as there is no actual Scientific evidence, only fallacious evidence.

Many of us realise that fallacious evidence has value, and should not be summarily rejected. This should apply equally to non-science disiplines, as well as the sciences. Actually especially to other disiplines, as they are not bound by Scientific expectations. They do not operate under the same guidelines.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 11:23:21 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The ignorant and uneducated continuously cease to amaze me.

I do wonder why believers who constantly deny/reject evolution never bother to get any understanding of the subject matter, but instead make up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, pretending they're smart.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2016 11:35:40 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time. While they do vary they do so within limits. As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new, furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

New traits are generated by mutation, not selection. Artificial breeds can mate with natural ones, causing the offspring to inherit traits the artificial breed was selected not to have. Species are not observed to remain the same over time; we've actually observed speciation occur.

2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

"Living fossils" do change, just not in their general body structure. They're also very rare and usually occupy niches where there are few competitors.

3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory. Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

This is just wrong. Besides, mutations are acted on by selection, which eliminates the detrimental ones.

4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion. Common descent is the hypothesis, genetic and morphological similarity is the proof, Evolution is the resultant theory.

5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

This argument is illogical. I'm not even sure what I'd be refuting if I tried.

In conclusion, you are badly misinformed about what Evolution is and how it works. That's not your fault: science isn't taught as well as it should be. I'm going to set up a Q&A thread for Evolution, so that misunderstandings on the subject can be addressed properly.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 1:42:55 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:23:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The ignorant and uneducated continuously cease to amaze me.

I do wonder why believers who constantly deny/reject evolution never bother to get any understanding of the subject matter, but instead make up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, pretending they're smart.

Very foolish. Not every one who denies evolution misunderstands it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Edlvsjd
Posts: 1,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:02:21 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 1:42:55 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:23:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The ignorant and uneducated continuously cease to amaze me.

I do wonder why believers who constantly deny/reject evolution never bother to get any understanding of the subject matter, but instead make up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, pretending they're smart.

Very foolish. Not every one who denies evolution misunderstands it.

That's good ole Dan for ya, nothing even relative or intellectual to add to the the conversation, just an unexplained "nuh-uh, dumba$$" to anyone who disagrees with him, if I were you, I would ignore his engagements, he is incapable of seeing the other side of the dichotomy.
Globe earth=bullsh!t
Dinosaurs =bullsh!t
Holocaust = bullsh!t
Heliocentrism =bullsh!t
Big bang theory=bullsh!t
Evolution =bullsh!t
NASA =bullsh!t
Outer space=bullsh!t
Democracy =Bullsh!t
Freedom=bullsh!t
Gravity=bullsh!t
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:10:10 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:35:40 PM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time. While they do vary they do so within limits. As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new, furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

New traits are generated by mutation, not selection. Artificial breeds can mate with natural ones, causing the offspring to inherit traits the artificial breed was selected not to have. Species are not observed to remain the same over time; we've actually observed speciation occur.

All examples of speciation are variation within a species. This even applies when there is reproductive isolation.


2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

"Living fossils" do change, just not in their general body structure. They're also very rare and usually occupy niches where there are few competitors.

Fossils are rare so it's not suprising living fossils are rare too. However, this does not refute the fact that they contradict evolution. Saying they had few competitors is a poor explanation really. Various species which evolved had little competition.


3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory. Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

This is just wrong. Besides, mutations are acted on by selection, which eliminates the detrimental ones.

Why is it wrong? Besides, in sexual organisms, selection doesn't always eliminate detrimental mutations as some are recessive.


4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion. Common descent is the hypothesis, genetic and morphological similarity is the proof, Evolution is the resultant theory.

It is assumed as proof. Genetic and morphological similarities doesn't conclusively prove evolution. They can also be used as evidence of common design. Nothing supports the conclusion of common descent from the said similarities.


5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

This argument is illogical. I'm not even sure what I'd be refuting if I tried.

It's not. Read it again carefully.


In conclusion, you are badly misinformed about what Evolution is and how it works. That's not your fault: science isn't taught as well as it should be. I'm going to set up a Q&A thread for Evolution, so that misunderstandings on the subject can be addressed properly.

And where have I shown that i'm misinformed on evolution. It is a common foolishness among evolutionists to think that everyone who denies evolution doesn't understand it.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:28:34 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time.

Species are organisms who can viably reproduce together.
Once a divergent population can no longer successfully interbreed, there are two different species. This can take a lot of time, or like in the case of flies, mole rats, .fish and birds, it can take less time and we can observe speciation.

While they do vary they do so within limits. As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new,

Not true, we've done exactly what you're describing with flies, plants, and bacteria.

furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

Do you just not know how to search google for "speciation PNAS" or "speciation NCBI?"

2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods.

No, this is disingenuous...SOME species need little variation to maintain reproductive success in a particular ecosystem so they remain very similar, but MOST organisms' gene pools HAD to evolve to proliferate.

The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

Not well adapted, but they are reproductively successful given their inherent traits and their ecosystem.
Again, MOST organisms aren't so fortunate and must diverge genetically.

3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory.

Please google Polyploidy.
This is the #1 things anti-evoers simply are unaware of.
Google "autopolyploidy" or "polyploidy"
LIterally it's a generation of increased genetic information...the gene sets are doubled in the offspring.
Parents provide only 2 gene sets and their offspring are born with more than 2 gene sets thanks to a mutations DURING the replication process and these offspring are called polyploids.

Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

But you ignore polyploidy...

4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry.

No, homology isn't an assumption, it's testable with genetics, and guess what, the predictions made by homology are CONFIRMED by genetics...confirmed.

For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

How are genes transferred then if not from a pre-existing organism to a new one?

5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

No, all you need is reproductive isolation, because if they can't viably reproduce, they are no longer the same species.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:20:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:10:10 AM, Iredia wrote:
All examples of speciation are variation within a species. This even applies when there is reproductive isolation.

Populations can vary too. The "boundary" between one species and another is not a tangible thing, but merely a tool biologists use to distinguish populations that either can't or don't interbreed.

Camels and llamas are a good demonstration of this. The most recent common ancestor of the Camelidae family lived in North America, about 3 million years ago, but spawned two populations into Asia and South America. The Asian-African population evolved into camels, while the South American population evolved into llamas. Being geographically separated, they adapted to different climates and became different sizes. Camels and llamas are still genetically compatible via artificial insemination (the offspring is known as a cama, and is fertile), but their size difference creates a barrier to normal mating - hence, they are classified as separate species (and separate genera, for that matter).

Polar bears and grizzly bears are another example, and diverged in the last few hundred thousand years. Polar bears and grizzly bears can and do mate when they come into contact with each other, but their locations and lifestyles are so different that this seldom happens. It is practical to treat them as separate species for this reason.

Hawthorn flies are an example of speciation that's occurring right now. When apples were introduced to North America in the 1800s, a sub-population of hawthorn flies adapted to eating apples over hawthorns, and thus became the apple maggot. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Fossils are rare so it's not suprising living fossils are rare too. However, this does not refute the fact that they contradict evolution. Saying they had few competitors is a poor explanation really. Various species which evolved had little competition.

"Living fossil" is a figure of speech, describing their morphological similarity to the species we find in the fossil record.

Most species have high competition, which is what drives their selection for certain traits. Low competition means low selection, which is why "living fossils" preserve traits that was selected against in other species.

Why is it wrong?

1. Mutations add information to the genome, allowing more complexity.
2. Beneficial mutations occur all the time.
3. Gain-of-function mutations are common.

Besides, in sexual organisms, selection doesn't always eliminate detrimental mutations as some are recessive.

Correct, some mutations can "hide behind" dominant alleles. However, the individuals with two recessive alleles don't last very long.

In cases of incomplete dominance, a detrimental dominant allele can hide as well. Manx cats, for instance, are the result of a dominant allele that shortens the tail; Manx cats have one copy and normal cats have zero. Two copies of the dominant allele shortens the spine, making the fetus inviable.

It is assumed as proof. Genetic and morphological similarities doesn't conclusively prove evolution. They can also be used as evidence of common design. Nothing supports the conclusion of common descent from the said similarities.

We have no proof of a designer, but can easily observe that ancestors produce descendants. There's no reason why a designer would create the number of species we see, nor why he'd make some more similar than others; but there is a good reason we'd observe this if all species share a common ancestor and evolved over many millions of years by adapting to different environments.

In other words, similarities support the explanation of descent, and neither support nor disprove the explanation of design. Nothing can "disprove" design, because design is not a testable hypothesis.

5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

This argument is illogical. I'm not even sure what I'd be refuting if I tried.

It's not. Read it again carefully.

Your wording is confusing, I can't understand what you're saying.

And where have I shown that i'm misinformed on evolution.

Everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.

It is a common foolishness among evolutionists to think that everyone who denies evolution doesn't understand it.

It's not foolish, it's generous - the alternative is that you do understand it and are maliciously lying about it. I don't think you're lying, just that you've read so much creationist propaganda that you wrongly believe yourself an expert on the subject.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 7:37:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time. While they do vary they do so within limits.

We have only been watching for a few decades and it is only in the last two that we really understand genetics very well. If 4 billion years is the height of Mt. Everest 20 years is the width of a sheet of paper. In such a short time period we shouldn't expect very much change.

However we have seen some changes. We have many confirmed instances of speciation. We have also seen new abilities evolve like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon and others to digest nitrate. We have also seen resistance to drugs and viruses evolve. Once you understand the complexity of these systems you can understand how amazing this evolution is.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.actionbioscience.org...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

This time period is too short to conclude there are limits to evolution. Thats like saying I can't go more than a few feet because that is all you have seen me go in a few seconds.

As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new,

Look at Chihuhuas, great danes, bulldogs, and compare them to wolves. If scientists had found them out in the woods they would definitely have classified chihuahuas as not the same species as wolves.

furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

The reason they revert is because before nature was selecting traits that were best for survival with natural selection and we get wolves from that. Humans began selecting traits that were cute and adorable with human selection and we get chihuahuas and bulldogs. When natural selection again takes charge it removes those human selected traits and again selects for those required for survivor.

This shows how selection whether human or natural can easily mold animals. Originally there was nothing like a chihuahuas among wolves but with mutations and selection we did get them.

2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

Not every species is a living fossil. For example we only find humans in the last 200,000 years and most species today are not found too deep in the fossil record and 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. So living fossils are the exception not the rule.

Natural selection is the decider of whether evolution happens and if the enviornment doesn't change there is no real push for evolution to happen because they are perfectly adapted. For example apes lived in the trees and because their environment barely changed, they barely changes. Our ancestors lived in places that were losing forest and were forced onto the ground to survive and we saw a lot of evolution happen.

3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory.

Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function. You are trying to paint all beneficial mutations with the same brush when they are all different. We have observed bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon. This sounds like a gain in function to me.

Even if they are rare, every person has 100 mutations and if you add up all those mutations for every person over millions of generations you get a lot of beneficial mutations that natural selection is going to select for.

4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

Comparative genomics isn't strong evidence for evolution. However our amazing level of similarity to apes is a strong confirmation of evolution's prediction that humans are not separate from animals and that a line of ancestors separate us from them. But far more is needed to confirm evolution.

5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

Except we have seen new species evolve as I mentioned above so you are saying something we have seen never happened. If the new species is very similar to the old then it won't need wholesale changes to survive in a similar environment to the old.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 7:54:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.
As we (should) know, fallacious arguments do not necessarily have false conclusions, but they are questionable.

In the case of ToE, there is a rather large accumulation of fallacious evidence, and competing theories are rather weakly represented, still, fallacious arguments do remain fallacious no matter how high the stack of fallacious evidence.

The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

Lots of tough talk here but no specifics.

A very critical part of the fossil record, is a lack of fossils. The 'black swan' fallacy.

You didn't back this up. Here are just a few pages that came up when I googled "transitional fossils:" Could you please do an easy google search before you make easily refuted claims?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...

There is also circumstantial DNA 'evidence', that is far from conclusive..

Again, you provide no specifics. Putting quotes around a word does't make it automatically wrong. Watch me do this too:
The questionable 'evidence' for the 'theory' of gravity are based on few 'facts.'

The other critical support for ToE is endorsement by the Scientistific community. An appeal to authority, plan and simple.

The thousands of the smartest people in biology, geology, anthropology, and genetics are more likely to be right about their diciplines than you are. When we see 98% support of evolution from these people it makes it unlikely that very smart people are believing something ridiculous while mostly non-expert creationists from stuff they heard in church or arguments they read on Facebook.

Remove these two pieces of 'evidence' (using the term loosely), and you are not left with much. Remove all of the fallacious 'evidence', and the only logical thing to do is reject it.

You didn't remove anything because you didn't provide any real specifics. There is almost nothing for me to respond to which makes my life very boring.

I have seen arguments on this board that "fallacious evidence" is not evidence (in the scientific sense). If those people would be honest, they should reject ToE, as there is no actual Scientific evidence, only fallacious evidence.

Many of us realise that fallacious evidence has value, and should not be summarily rejected. This should apply equally to non-science disiplines, as well as the sciences. Actually especially to other disiplines, as they are not bound by Scientific expectations. They do not operate under the same guidelines.

There you go again with these phantom fallacious evidence. Somehow I suspect I have a better chance of finding bigfoot and than finding a confirmed example of one of these horrible arguments that most of the experts fallaciously believe yet you in your uninformed knowledge have discovered from reading creationist blogs.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 9:30:26 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time.

Really? What causes you to assume that?
From what you say, I suspect you have never really looked closely at the evidence.


As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new,
The question is, what do you mean by "new"?
AFIK, nothing in evolution is truly new.
An excellent book (very technical) on the subject is "The Major Transitions in Evolution" ==> https://global.oup.com...;


furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type.
Where the heck did you get that idea from?
Do you really believe that a Pincher will revert to a wolf? In how many generations?


2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

There are Forms of life, that have barely changed in millions of years (the cockroach has remained virtually unchanged since 120 million years).
The reason is, those species reached a local maximum in the gigantic landscape of genetic variability. Any change would make it less well adapted to the environment than its ancestors, so the species stays put.
I claim, there is really no such thing as a "living" fossil.


3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory. Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

That is nonsense because on the one side you have single cell organisms like the Amoeba, while at the other end complexity is open ended.


4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related.
Yes. That is correct.

But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

In your opinion, what would be a justification for such an assumption?


5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical.
Of course it never happened that way. Gradual change was interspersed with huge catasprophic changes in the environment, which killed off up 90% of all life on earth. Tak a look at this BBC video: https://www.youtube.com...


Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.
Why does that count against evolution? Could you explain?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 9:47:05 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 7:54:06 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.
As we (should) know, fallacious arguments do not necessarily have false conclusions, but they are questionable.

In the case of ToE, there is a rather large accumulation of fallacious evidence, and competing theories are rather weakly represented, still, fallacious arguments do remain fallacious no matter how high the stack of fallacious evidence.

The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

Lots of tough talk here but no specifics.

A very critical part of the fossil record, is a lack of fossils. The 'black swan' fallacy.

You didn't back this up. Here are just a few pages that came up when I googled "transitional fossils:" Could you please do an easy google search before you make easily refuted claims?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...

There is also circumstantial DNA 'evidence', that is far from conclusive..

Again, you provide no specifics. Putting quotes around a word does't make it automatically wrong. Watch me do this too:
The questionable 'evidence' for the 'theory' of gravity are based on few 'facts.'

The other critical support for ToE is endorsement by the Scientistific community. An appeal to authority, plan and simple.

The thousands of the smartest people in biology, geology, anthropology, and genetics are more likely to be right about their diciplines than you are. When we see 98% support of evolution from these people it makes it unlikely that very smart people are believing something ridiculous while mostly non-expert creationists from stuff they heard in church or arguments they read on Facebook.

Remove these two pieces of 'evidence' (using the term loosely), and you are not left with much. Remove all of the fallacious 'evidence', and the only logical thing to do is reject it.

You didn't remove anything because you didn't provide any real specifics. There is almost nothing for me to respond to which makes my life very boring.

I have seen arguments on this board that "fallacious evidence" is not evidence (in the scientific sense). If those people would be honest, they should reject ToE, as there is no actual Scientific evidence, only fallacious evidence.

Many of us realise that fallacious evidence has value, and should not be summarily rejected. This should apply equally to non-science disiplines, as well as the sciences. Actually especially to other disiplines, as they are not bound by Scientific expectations. They do not operate under the same guidelines.

There you go again with these phantom fallacious evidence. Somehow I suspect I have a better chance of finding bigfoot and than finding a confirmed example of one of these horrible arguments that most of the experts fallaciously believe yet you in your uninformed knowledge have discovered from reading creationist blogs.

Where do I start.
You seem to have me confused with someone who claims ToE is not true or accurate.
My claim is simply that the evidence is fallacious.
Provide the non-fallacious evidence and your work will be done.

Many fallacious arguments have true and accurate conclusions.
I have made this argument many times.

The missing fossils I referred to are not the transitional - which are certainly inconclusive - I was referring to, for example, the lack of flowers from 100 million years ago.
'Flowers must have evolved because we can't find any that are as old as other plant life.'
Black swans.

Theoretical transitional fossils forms, are not conclusive, non-fallacious, and convincing scientific evidence for evolution.
Do you disagree?

Making the claim that 98 per cent of the greatest scientific minds love ToE is an appeal to authority, and fallacious.
Do you disagree?

Please do not go on and on about all of the wonderful evidence that can only lead to one conclusion, as if that were true. Just give me the non-fallacious evidence.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 10:16:37 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 9:47:05 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:54:06 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.
As we (should) know, fallacious arguments do not necessarily have false conclusions, but they are questionable.

In the case of ToE, there is a rather large accumulation of fallacious evidence, and competing theories are rather weakly represented, still, fallacious arguments do remain fallacious no matter how high the stack of fallacious evidence.

The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

Lots of tough talk here but no specifics.

A very critical part of the fossil record, is a lack of fossils. The 'black swan' fallacy.

You didn't back this up. Here are just a few pages that came up when I googled "transitional fossils:" Could you please do an easy google search before you make easily refuted claims?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...

There is also circumstantial DNA 'evidence', that is far from conclusive..

Again, you provide no specifics. Putting quotes around a word does't make it automatically wrong. Watch me do this too:
The questionable 'evidence' for the 'theory' of gravity are based on few 'facts.'

The other critical support for ToE is endorsement by the Scientistific community. An appeal to authority, plan and simple.

The thousands of the smartest people in biology, geology, anthropology, and genetics are more likely to be right about their diciplines than you are. When we see 98% support of evolution from these people it makes it unlikely that very smart people are believing something ridiculous while mostly non-expert creationists from stuff they heard in church or arguments they read on Facebook.

Remove these two pieces of 'evidence' (using the term loosely), and you are not left with much. Remove all of the fallacious 'evidence', and the only logical thing to do is reject it.

You didn't remove anything because you didn't provide any real specifics. There is almost nothing for me to respond to which makes my life very boring.

I have seen arguments on this board that "fallacious evidence" is not evidence (in the scientific sense). If those people would be honest, they should reject ToE, as there is no actual Scientific evidence, only fallacious evidence.

Many of us realise that fallacious evidence has value, and should not be summarily rejected. This should apply equally to non-science disiplines, as well as the sciences. Actually especially to other disiplines, as they are not bound by Scientific expectations. They do not operate under the same guidelines.

There you go again with these phantom fallacious evidence. Somehow I suspect I have a better chance of finding bigfoot and than finding a confirmed example of one of these horrible arguments that most of the experts fallaciously believe yet you in your uninformed knowledge have discovered from reading creationist blogs.

Where do I start.
You seem to have me confused with someone who claims ToE is not true or accurate.
My claim is simply that the evidence is fallacious.
Provide the non-fallacious evidence and your work will be done.

By saying the evidence is fallacious you yourself are making a claim. And you haven't done squat to support it.

Let me start you off with just a few pieces of evidence to start us off. One example is the fossil evidence for human evolution and the species that undeniably have a mix of human and ape features like homo erectus, and australopithecus afarensis. We have genetic evidence like the fact that the retroviruses DNA in humans and apes match. An example of observed evolution is the ability to digest nylon in bacteria. One vestigial trait we have found are vestigial legs in snakes.

Many fallacious arguments have true and accurate conclusions.
I have made this argument many times.

The missing fossils I referred to are not the transitional - which are certainly inconclusive -

Why are they inconclusive? You keep blowing a lot of smoke at this issue but there is nothing concrete here.

I was referring to, for example, the lack of flowers from 100 million years ago.
'Flowers must have evolved because we can't find any that are as old as other plant life.'
Black swans.

Again, a simple google search could have prevented you from making this claim. We have found primitive flowers that are 130 million years old. Flowers like many plants are known for not fossilizing very well because they are soft so there could easily be older flowers we haven't found yet. Even today we keep finding older and older plants.
http://www.livescience.com...

Theoretical transitional fossils forms, are not conclusive, non-fallacious, and convincing scientific evidence for evolution.
Do you disagree?

They are not theoretical, they are very real and there are physical bones.

Making the claim that 98 per cent of the greatest scientific minds love ToE is an appeal to authority, and fallacious.
Do you disagree?

If I argue that evolution must be true because experts agree then that is certainly fallacious. I am arguing that biologists, chemists, geologists, anthropologists, and geneticists are incredibly smart and have far more knowledge about evolution and the natural world and are far more likely to be right than you or those creationist bloggers.

If evolution is easily refutable we wouldn't see such a consensus over tens of thousands of scientists worldwide which means evolution probably has some very convincing arguments to convince almost all of the experts, and their opinion does lend weight to evolution, and we need to give a real look at the evidence and listen to these people before we discount the theory.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 10:28:25 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 3:20:35 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:10:10 AM, Iredia wrote:
All examples of speciation are variation within a species. This even applies when there is reproductive isolation.

Populations can vary too. The "boundary" between one species and another is not a tangible thing, but merely a tool biologists use to distinguish populations that either can't or don't interbreed.

Camels and llamas are a good demonstration of this. The most recent common ancestor of the Camelidae family lived in North America, about 3 million years ago, but spawned two populations into Asia and South America. The Asian-African population evolved into camels, while the South American population evolved into llamas. Being geographically separated, they adapted to different climates and became different sizes. Camels and llamas are still genetically compatible via artificial insemination (the offspring is known as a cama, and is fertile), but their size difference creates a barrier to normal mating - hence, they are classified as separate species (and separate genera, for that matter).

Polar bears and grizzly bears are another example, and diverged in the last few hundred thousand years. Polar bears and grizzly bears can and do mate when they come into contact with each other, but their locations and lifestyles are so different that this seldom happens. It is practical to treat them as separate species for this reason.

Hawthorn flies are an example of speciation that's occurring right now. When apples were introduced to North America in the 1800s, a sub-population of hawthorn flies adapted to eating apples over hawthorns, and thus became the apple maggot. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Okay. None of this refutes my point though. For example, the hawthorne fly is still a fly.


Fossils are rare so it's not suprising living fossils are rare too. However, this does not refute the fact that they contradict evolution. Saying they had few competitors is a poor explanation really. Various species which evolved had little competition.

"Living fossil" is a figure of speech, describing their morphological similarity to the species we find in the fossil record.

Most species have high competition, which is what drives their selection for certain traits. Low competition means low selection, which is why "living fossils" preserve traits that was selected against in other species.

You are simply giving excuses here. As I said, various species which supposedly evolved had little competition. For example, cyanobacteria is a living fossil, with little competition, and one of the oldest ancestors of all life, yet they exist unchanged for over 3 billion years.


Why is it wrong?

1. Mutations add information to the genome, allowing more complexity.
2. Beneficial mutations occur all the time.
3. Gain-of-function mutations are common.

Wrong. 'Both theories agree that the vast majority of novel
mutations are neutral or deleterious and that advantageous
mutations are rare, which has been supported by
experimental results.' - from Wikipedia's article on mutations


Besides, in sexual organisms, selection doesn't always eliminate detrimental mutations as some are recessive.

Correct, some mutations can "hide behind" dominant alleles. However, the individuals with two recessive alleles don't last very long.

Not all of them. For instance, hemophilia is caused by a fairly common harmful mutation.


In cases of incomplete dominance, a detrimental dominant allele can hide as well. Manx cats, for instance, are the result of a dominant allele that shortens the tail; Manx cats have one copy and normal cats have zero. Two copies of the dominant allele shortens the spine, making the fetus inviable.

Okay.


It is assumed as proof. Genetic and morphological similarities doesn't conclusively prove evolution. They can also be used as evidence of common design. Nothing supports the conclusion of common descent from the said similarities.

We have no proof of a designer, but can easily observe that ancestors produce descendants. There's no reason why a designer would create the number of species we see, nor why he'd make some more similar than others; but there is a good reason we'd observe this if all species share a common ancestor and evolved over many millions of years by adapting to different environments.

There's repeated examples of humans using a common design in multiple, varied instances; examples are tyres in various vehicles and transistors in various electronic devices, therefore common design is backed up by experience. We only observe ancestry within a species but we don't observe ancestry across species. What is this good reason we observe these similarities, do tell.


In other words, similarities support the explanation of descent, and neither support nor disprove the explanation of design. Nothing can "disprove" design, because design is not a testable hypothesis.

Design is actually a testable hypothesis. For instance, design theorists predicted function would be found in so-called junk DNA and the ENCODE project verified this.


5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

This argument is illogical. I'm not even sure what I'd be refuting if I tried.

It's not. Read it again carefully.

Your wording is confusing, I can't understand what you're saying.

My wording is clear to anyone with good vocabs. Anyway let's leave this.


And where have I shown that i'm misinformed on evolution.

Everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.

Don't just assert. Explain how.


It is a common foolishness among evolutionists to think that everyone who denies evolution doesn't understand it.

It's not foolish, it's generous - the alternative is that you do understand it and are maliciously lying about it. I don't think you're lying, just that you've read so much creationist propaganda that you wrongly believe yourself an expert on the subject.

So if I understand it I can only deny it if I'm lying about it. Great logic.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 10:43:35 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 9:47:05 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:54:06 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

That's fine.
To question, is your right as a citizen.


The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

What is OP?

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.

Could you please be more specific and give examples of what you mean by "fallacious"?

In the case of ToE, there is a rather large accumulation of fallacious evidence, and competing theories are rather weakly represented, still, fallacious arguments do remain fallacious no matter how high the stack of fallacious evidence.



The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

Lots of tough talk here but no specifics.
Exaclty! I get the same feeling.


Where do I start.
You seem to have me confused with someone who claims ToE is not true or accurate.
My claim is simply that the evidence is fallacious.
Again... what do you mean by fallacious?
Your problem seems to be a lack of specificity in what you are trying to say.

The missing fossils I referred to are not the transitional - which are certainly inconclusive - I was referring to, for example, the lack of flowers from 100 million years ago.
'Flowers must have evolved because we can't find any that are as old as other plant life.'
Nonsense!
Take a look at these fossils of flowers: http://geology.com...


Theoretical transitional fossils forms, are not conclusive, non-fallacious, and convincing scientific evidence for evolution.
Do you disagree?

Making the claim that 98 per cent of the greatest scientific minds love ToE is an appeal to authority, and fallacious.
Do you disagree?

Yep! I disagree.
So what do we do now?


Please do not go on and on about all of the wonderful evidence that can only lead to one conclusion, as if that were true. Just give me the non-fallacious evidence.

Again and again...
Give us some specific examples of what you mean by fallacious.
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:07:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:28:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time.

Species are organisms who can viably reproduce together.
Once a divergent population can no longer successfully interbreed, there are two different species. This can take a lot of time, or like in the case of flies, mole rats, .fish and birds, it can take less time and we can observe speciation.

As I said, variation within limits.


While they do vary they do so within limits. As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new,

Not true, we've done exactly what you're describing with flies, plants, and bacteria.

And they were still flies, plants and bacteria.


furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

Do you just not know how to search google for "speciation PNAS" or "speciation NCBI?"

I've read of multiple examples of speciation. And the fact is such organisms generally remained the same.


2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods.

No, this is disingenuous...SOME species need little variation to maintain reproductive success in a particular ecosystem so they remain very similar, but MOST organisms' gene pools HAD to evolve to proliferate.

Wrong. Bacteria for example, very fecund and yet they evolved over time into other species. Besides, your statement suggests that it's the reproductive success of a species that drives it's variation. This is wrong.


The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

Not well adapted, but they are reproductively successful given their inherent traits and their ecosystem.
Again, MOST organisms aren't so fortunate and must diverge genetically.

Are you saying that a species that isn't reproductively successful diverges ?


3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory.

Please google Polyploidy.
This is the #1 things anti-evoers simply are unaware of.
Google "autopolyploidy" or "polyploidy"
LIterally it's a generation of increased genetic information...the gene sets are doubled in the offspring.
Parents provide only 2 gene sets and their offspring are born with more than 2 gene sets thanks to a mutations DURING the replication process and these offspring are called polyploids.

More of the same information isn't new information.


Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

But you ignore polyploidy...

Feel free to demonstrate that polyploidy is a gain-of-function mutation.


4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry.

No, homology isn't an assumption, it's testable with genetics, and guess what, the predictions made by homology are CONFIRMED by genetics...confirmed.

It is only confirmed if you assume evolution in the first place.


For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

How are genes transferred then if not from a pre-existing organism to a new one?

Only within a species, not across different species.


5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

No, all you need is reproductive isolation, because if they can't viably reproduce, they are no longer the same species.

Reproductive isolation doesn't solve the problem. To get an entirely different species from another eg dinosaurs to birds you need wholesale changes to systems otherwise the species won't be viable.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:27:52 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 10:16:37 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/21/2016 9:47:05 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:54:06 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.


The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

Lots of tough talk here but no specifics.

A very critical part of the fossil record, is a lack of fossils. The 'black swan' fallacy.

You didn't back this up. Here are just a few pages that came up when I googled "transitional fossils:" Could you please do an easy google search before you make easily refuted claims?
https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.transitionalfossils.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
https://ncse.com...

There is also circumstantial DNA 'evidence', that is far from conclusive..

Again, you provide no specifics. Putting quotes around a word does't make it automatically wrong. Watch me do this too:
The questionable 'evidence' for the 'theory' of gravity are based on few 'facts.'

The other critical support for ToE is endorsement by the Scientistific community. An appeal to authority, plan and simple.

The thousands of the smartest people in biology, geology, anthropology, and genetics are more likely to be right about their diciplines than you are. When we see 98% support of evolution from these people it makes it unlikely that very smart people are believing something ridiculous while mostly non-expert creationists from stuff they heard in church or arguments they read on Facebook.

Remove these two pieces of 'evidence' (using the term loosely), and you are not left with much. Remove all of the fallacious 'evidence', and the only logical thing to do is reject it.

You didn't remove anything because you didn't provide any real specifics. There is almost nothing for me to respond to which makes my life very boring.

I have seen arguments on this board that "fallacious evidence" is not evidence (in the scientific sense). If those people would be honest, they should reject ToE, as there is no actual Scientific evidence, only fallacious evidence.



There you go again with these phantom fallacious evidence. Somehow I suspect I have a better chance of finding bigfoot and than finding a confirmed example of one of these horrible arguments that most of the experts fallaciously believe yet you in your uninformed knowledge have discovered from reading creationist blogs.

Where do I start.
You seem to have me confused with someone who claims ToE is not true or accurate.
My claim is simply that the evidence is fallacious.
Provide the non-fallacious evidence and your work will be done.

By saying the evidence is fallacious you yourself are making a claim. And you haven't done squat to support it.

Let me start you off with just a few pieces of evidence to start us off. One example is the fossil evidence for human evolution and the species that undeniably have a mix of human and ape features like homo erectus, and australopithecus afarensis. We have genetic evidence like the fact that the retroviruses DNA in humans and apes match. An example of observed evolution is the ability to digest nylon in bacteria. One vestigial trait we have found are vestigial legs in snakes.

Many fallacious arguments have true and accurate conclusions.
I have made this argument many times.

The missing fossils I referred to are not the transitional - which are certainly inconclusive -

Why are they inconclusive? You keep blowing a lot of smoke at this issue but there is nothing concrete here.

I was referring to, for example, the lack of flowers from 100 million years ago.
'Flowers must have evolved because we can't find any that are as old as other plant life.'
Black swans.

Again, a simple google search could have prevented you from making this claim. We have found primitive flowers that are 130 million years old. Flowers like many plants are known for not fossilizing very well because they are soft so there could easily be older flowers we haven't found yet. Even today we keep finding older and older plants.
http://www.livescience.com...

Look, here is the point, how could you have missed it.
The evidence that certain life forms have evolved is that they have not been found beyond a certain point in the fossil record.
You say that we keep finding older ones older plants, so maybe we will find 300 million year old flowers, or 500 million year old flowers, or snap dragons on some distant planet. Where will ToE be then?
Evolutionist web sites say undiscovered fossils is an important of ToE, and that is fallacious evidence.
I have not seen you respond to that.

Theoretical transitional fossils forms, are not conclusive, non-fallacious, and convincing scientific evidence for evolution.
Do you disagree?

They are not theoretical, they are very real and there are physical bones.

Oh, wow.
That is you rebuttal?
Their role in the history of life on earth is not conclusive.
There is a theory that says they are transitional between species, and this is theoretically true, unproven, supposed, maybe yes, maybe no.

Making the claim that 98 per cent of the greatest scientific minds love ToE is an appeal to authority, and fallacious.
Do you disagree?

If I argue that evolution must be true because experts agree then that is certainly fallacious. I am arguing that biologists, chemists, geologists, anthropologists, and geneticists are incredibly smart and have far more knowledge about evolution and the natural world and are far more likely to be right than you or those creationist bloggers.

I'll take that as a yes, an appeal to authority is fallacious.
It can not be considered non-fallacious, regardless of how much you agree with them.

If evolution is easily refutable we wouldn't see such a consensus over tens of thousands of scientists worldwide which means evolution probably has some very convincing arguments to convince almost all of the experts, and their opinion does lend weight to evolution, and we need to give a real look at the evidence and listen to these people before we discount the theory.

There you go doing exactly what I told you not to do.
I am not asking anyone to discount ToE.
I do not care high the stack of fallacious evidence is.
That is irrelevant in determining if any evidence is not fallacious.
I am asking individuals who claim to be objective, to admit that the evidence is fallacious.
I have shown how some of the most important evidence is fallacious, and all you seem to do is say I have not shown that to be true, and even if I did, it doesn't matter, I should still support ToE.
I did show it, and it does matter.
On this board arguments are routinely discounted as not true simply because they are fallacious, but when Science makes fallacious arguments we are expected to overlook that.
And, here is the clincher, that is seen as objectivity.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:31:06 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 10:43:35 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/21/2016 9:47:05 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/21/2016 7:54:06 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:01:48 PM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
I find there are good reasons to accept ToE, and good reasons to question, or even reject it.

That's fine.
To question, is your right as a citizen.


The OP presents some of the reasons to question or reject it, I have some similar concerns, although I would express it differently.

What is OP?

All of the critical evidence is fallacious.

Could you please be more specific and give examples of what you mean by "fallacious"?

In the case of ToE, there is a rather large accumulation of fallacious evidence, and competing theories are rather weakly represented, still, fallacious arguments do remain fallacious no matter how high the stack of fallacious evidence.



The only reasonable position is to acknowledge that the argument is fallacious.
Scientifically speaking, it is questionable, not "True".

Lots of tough talk here but no specifics.
Exaclty! I get the same feeling.


Where do I start.
You seem to have me confused with someone who claims ToE is not true or accurate.
My claim is simply that the evidence is fallacious.
Again... what do you mean by fallacious?
Your problem seems to be a lack of specificity in what you are trying to say.

The missing fossils I referred to are not the transitional - which are certainly inconclusive - I was referring to, for example, the lack of flowers from 100 million years ago.
'Flowers must have evolved because we can't find any that are as old as other plant life.'
Nonsense!
Take a look at these fossils of flowers: http://geology.com...


Theoretical transitional fossils forms, are not conclusive, non-fallacious, and convincing scientific evidence for evolution.
Do you disagree?

Making the claim that 98 per cent of the greatest scientific minds love ToE is an appeal to authority, and fallacious.
Do you disagree?

Yep! I disagree.
So what do we do now?


Please do not go on and on about all of the wonderful evidence that can only lead to one conclusion, as if that were true. Just give me the non-fallacious evidence.

Again and again...
Give us some specific examples of what you mean by fallacious.

It you did not know what a fallacy is, find another teacher.
I lack the time.
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:32:31 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 11:07:29 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/21/2016 2:28:34 AM, MagicAintReal wrote:

Species are organisms who can viably reproduce together.
Once a divergent population can no longer successfully interbreed, there are two different species. This can take a lot of time, or like in the case of flies, mole rats, .fish and birds, it can take less time and we can observe speciation.

As I said, variation within limits.

What limits?
Before the divergence there was one species, after, there are two.
After all, that's what evolution is about.


And they were still flies, plants and bacteria.

Are you sure?
Over long periods of geological time, but not within a human lifespan , completely new life forms can and do emerge.


I've read of multiple examples of speciation. And the fact is such organisms generally remained the same.

Of course they do, because the time is too short.
BTW, what do you mean by "generally"?


2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods.

No, this is disingenuous...SOME species need little variation to maintain reproductive success in a particular ecosystem so they remain very similar, but MOST organisms' gene pools HAD to evolve to proliferate.

Besides, your statement suggests that it's the reproductive success of a species that drives it's variation. This is wrong.

Of course reproductive success is the driving force behind evolution.
What exactly is wrong about that?


Again, MOST organisms aren't so fortunate and must diverge genetically.
Are you saying that a species that isn't reproductively successful diverges ?

Sorry... non sequitur
Divergence is the result of mutations that lead to phylogenetic change.
However reproductive success is important for a species at all times.


Reproductive isolation doesn't solve the problem. To get an entirely different species from another eg dinosaurs to birds you need wholesale changes to systems otherwise the species won't be viable.

The changes you are talking about (dinos to birds) aren't really that great.
Many dinos were warmblooded and had feathers to protect them from cold weather. From feathers to wings is but a small step. The change from a toothed reptilian jaw to a toothless beak is also very minor from a genetic point of view.

First the dinos learnt to glide -- then one day the just flew away.
At some point they lost their teeth and the jaws formed a beak.
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:36:40 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/20/2016 11:23:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The ignorant and uneducated continuously cease to amaze me.

I do wonder why believers who constantly deny/reject evolution never bother to get any understanding of the subject matter, but instead make up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, pretending they're smart.

And an insult is so much better of an argument?

#rekt #360noscope #doritos #quickscoped #didisayrekt #justkiddinglol #butidiestillreckyou

And to avoid wasting my time i WILL NOT REPLY to ANY RESPONSES at all.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Annnaxim
Posts: 243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:39:47 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 11:31:06 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 10/21/2016 10:43:35 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
Give us some specific examples of what you mean by fallacious.

If you did not know what a fallacy is, find another teacher.
I lack the time.

I know what a fallacy is.
I was asking about your understanding of the word "fallacious" in the context of evidence for evolution. Your problem seems to be a lack of specificity in what you are trying to say.
You use "fallacious" extensively, but I believe you are just using it as a wepon to discredit evidence for evolution.
So... can we please have some examples of what you mean.
Thank you.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:57:46 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
Whoever made the dinosaur bird can't/didn't happen...

I think it was nat geo but I'm not spending a lot of time looking. Anyway birds still carry the teeth gene and it occasionally occurs in the wild and we can activate it now that it's identified. This article is older but, again, I'm not wasting time on a pointless conversation:

http://www.livescience.com...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 11:59:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 7:37:25 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time. While they do vary they do so within limits.

We have only been watching for a few decades and it is only in the last two that we really understand genetics very well. If 4 billion years is the height of Mt. Everest 20 years is the width of a sheet of paper. In such a short time period we shouldn't expect very much change.

We also have recorded history in the form of paintings, descriptions in books and sculptures of various organisms which stretches that observation over thousands of years. And living fossils which takes it even much farther.


However we have seen some changes. We have many confirmed instances of speciation. We have also seen new abilities evolve like bacteria evolving the ability to digest nylon and others to digest nitrate. We have also seen resistance to drugs and viruses evolve. Once you understand the complexity of these systems you can understand how amazing this evolution is.
http://www.talkorigins.org...
http://www.actionbioscience.org...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The bacteria where still bacteria. All examples of speciation don't pass the genus level and as such can rightly be classified as variations within a species. Species is a fairly faulty man-made classification, for instance whalea and dolphins are different species, yet they interbreed.


This time period is too short to conclude there are limits to evolution. Thats like saying I can't go more than a few feet because that is all you have seen me go in a few seconds.

Recorded history and living fossils expand that timeframe.


As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new,

Look at Chihuhuas, great danes, bulldogs, and compare them to wolves. If scientists had found them out in the woods they would definitely have classified chihuahuas as not the same species as wolves.

Okay.


furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type. This is the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution particularly as it relates to universal common descent.

The reason they revert is because before nature was selecting traits that were best for survival with natural selection and we get wolves from that. Humans began selecting traits that were cute and adorable with human selection and we get chihuahuas and bulldogs. When natural selection again takes charge it removes those human selected traits and again selects for those required for survivor.

Which suggests that traits vary within a mean.


This shows how selection whether human or natural can easily mold animals. Originally there was nothing like a chihuahuas among wolves but with mutations and selection we did get them.

Okay.


2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

Not every species is a living fossil. For example we only find humans in the last 200,000 years and most species today are not found too deep in the fossil record and 99% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. So living fossils are the exception not the rule.

There is nothing supporting the common trope that 99%/of all species that ever lived are now extinct, if you think there is do present it, till then I can brush that off as nonsense. Living fossils are actually quite common amongst fossils, Wikipedia's article on the topic lists more than several examples amongst various classes of organisms.


Natural selection is the decider of whether evolution happens and if the enviornment doesn't change there is no real push for evolution to happen because they are perfectly adapted. For example apes lived in the trees and because their environment barely changed, they barely changes. Our ancestors lived in places that were losing forest and were forced onto the ground to survive and we saw a lot of evolution happen.

What's the evidence that our ape ancestors lived in places losing forest ? What is the evidence that all organisms which evolved did so because of environmental changes ?


3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory.



Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function. You are trying to paint all beneficial mutations with the same brush when they are all different. We have observed bacteria evolve the ability to digest nylon. This sounds like a gain in function to me.

Creationists have countered that the mutation behind that ability caused the loss of specifity in a protein and as such it doesn't count as one. Besides even if it were true my point still stands that beneficial mutations are rare.


Even if they are rare, every person has 100 mutations and if you add up all those mutations for every person over millions of generations you get a lot of beneficial mutations that natural selection is going to select for.

This doesn't hamper my statement that random mutation is a poor mechanism for generating complexity. 1) They are random mutations so those beneficial mutations could be undone by yet other mutations especially since they are rare. 2) What we observe is that while random mutations do genrate variety, they do so within the context of varieties within a species or a genus, NEVER above that 3) only certain parts of the genome are amenable to mutations, many other parts don't mutate and can't tolerate even the slightest mutations otherwise a lethal mutation occurs.


4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related. But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

Comparative genomics isn't strong evidence for evolution. However our amazing level of similarity to apes is a strong confirmation of evolution's prediction that humans are not separate from animals and that a line of ancestries separate us from them. But far more is needed to confirm evolution.

I'm surprised you say this since many scientists believe genetics provides the strongest evidence for evolution. I'm more surprised you then say that our similarity to apes is strong confirmation of evolution. There are many differences between humans and apes as well. Do those not falsify evolution ? Why don't they ?


5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical. Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.

Except we have seen new species evolve as I mentioned above so you are saying something we have seen never happened. If the new species is very similar to the old then it won't need wholesale changes to survive in a similar environment to the old.

As I said all speciation observed don't pass the level of genus. We are talking about evolution where entire new orders or kingdoms of organisms are derived from different ones such as from dinosaurs to birds. Such would require multiple changes because the organisms have different physiologies. You c
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
MagicAintReal
Posts: 592
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 12:04:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
Once a divergent population can no longer successfully interbreed, there are two different species. This can take a lot of time, or like in the case of flies, mole rats, .fish and birds, it can take less time and we can observe speciation.

As I said, variation within limits.

What limits?
What about speciation indicates to you that there's a limit?
The only limit is the lifetime of humans which allows us to observe it.
Even with this limit, we've still observed NEW species form from pre-existing ones.
So what indicates to you, other than your arbitrary human life span that there is a limit to speciation?

Not true, we've done exactly what you're describing with flies, plants, and bacteria.

And they were still flies, plants and bacteria.

Yeah, but if you agree that the species split into 2 species, what indicates that the split species can't split again?
Why can't you see that enough speciation events would lead to completely different organisms?

I've read of multiple examples of speciation. And the fact is such organisms generally remained the same.

Really?
You don't find the ability to once reproduce viably being lost a big change?
You agree that organisms can be reproductively isolated, but you don't agree that the new reproductively isolated organisms could diverge themselves and become even more reproductively isolated?
Why are you posing arbitrary limits to speciation??
You have no reason to, none.

Wrong. Bacteria for example, very fecund and yet they evolved over time into other species.

The bacteria whose characteristics allowed them to reproduce and didn't die before reproductive age were fecund, but as the constraints of the ecosystem change, so do the characteristics that will allow the bacteria to live long enough to reproduce.
This is basic stuff man.

Besides, your statement suggests that it's the reproductive success of a species that drives it's variation. This is wrong.

Nope.
It's the reproductive failures that disqualify certain characteristics, which filters out those organisms with those characteristics, and because they are reproductively failing, their genes don't get passed on...only the genes that will allow the organism to make it to successful reproductive age will remain. This causes variation within and beyond species.

Are you saying that a species that isn't reproductively successful diverges ?

Nope.
I'm saying that given no added constraints to a reproductively successful community of organisms, the characteristics that lead the organisms to live long enough to successfully reproduce wouldn't be filtered out by constraints.
The group of organisms' characteristics don't impede the organism.
Organisms whose constraints increase or change drastically may be reproductively impeded given their characteristics and the changing constraints.
Those who can't make it to reproduction don't pass on their genes, and this causes a divergence within species and beyond.

More of the same information isn't new information.

So you didn't bother googling polyploidy, huh?
So you ignore that mutations not only occur in the zygote but they also occur DURING the replication process.
This means that new gene sets are created by mutations DURING the replication process, which leads to MORE gene sets, but then within those gene sets AFTER replication, mutations occur, so within NEW gene sets are NEW genes from mutations DURING AND AFTER the replication process.
It's more, new, functional, information...please actually research polyploidy...

Feel free to demonstrate that polyploidy is a gain-of-function mutation.

"Gene family expansion, tissue-specific expression and recruitment of genes to new pathways contributed to the evolution of tuber development. The potato genome sequence provides a platform for genetic improvement of this vital crop."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Literally, polyploid offspring will be larger in size than their parents.
This allows the organisms to have different characteristics, or NEW INFORMATION, that wasn't there before...you guys are just losing on this point, because you don't know what polyploidy is...actually research it.

No, homology isn't an assumption, it's testable with genetics, and guess what, the predictions made by homology are CONFIRMED by genetics...confirmed.

It is only confirmed if you assume evolution in the first place.

Now you don't know what confirmed means...
We predicted from HOMOLOGY that humans inherited our structure from the modern apes, but that there were differences that made us exclusively human. When you look at older ape DNA and our DNA you find that 2 ape chromosomes fused together to make our 2nd chromosome and this genetic difference is proportional to the homology and differences between us and the older apes.
Our 2nd chromosome is a fusion of 2 ape chromosomes and this shows a completely different animal to another and you never knew about it or chose to ignore it.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

How are genes transferred then if not from a pre-existing organism to a new one?

Only within a species, not across different species.

False.
You already admitted that organisms speciate...that means the genes are being transferred across species...

No, all you need is reproductive isolation, because if they can't viably reproduce, they are no longer the same species.

Reproductive isolation doesn't solve the problem. To get an entirely different species from another eg dinosaurs to birds you need wholesale changes to systems otherwise the species won't be viable.

What you're saying here is that you believe that evolution can get you down the street, but given enough time and resources it can't get you across the city or the state or the country.

Why are you imposing arbitrary limits on a process you are largely ignorant of?
You may have noticed that I'm a teacher from my profile, and this is my area man...not once in any of my evolutionary studies has anything indicated a limit to speciation...none. What is your limit, and why?
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 12:35:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 9:30:26 AM, Annnaxim wrote:
At 10/20/2016 7:28:53 PM, Iredia wrote:
1) Species are generally observed to remain the same over time.

Really? What causes you to assume that?
From what you say, I suspect you have never really looked closely at the evidence.

Assume you say, what nonsense. Cats birth cats. Dogs birth dogs etc. They remain the same.



As selective breeding over the years shows you can select for a trait but you aren't going to get anything new,
The question is, what do you mean by "new"?

Check your dictionary.

AFIK, nothing in evolution is truly new.

So new lifeforms can't evolve. And new genetic information can't evolve too. Great

An excellent book (very technical) on the subject is "The Major Transitions in Evolution" ==> https://global.oup.com...;

Sorry. I'll pass.



furthermore when such artificially bred varieties are left to themselves they revert to their wild type.
Where the heck did you get that idea from?
Do you really believe that a Pincher will revert to a wolf? In how many generations?

Darwin's 'Origin Of The Species'.



2) Living fossils contradict evolution as it shows that species remain the same over supposed vast time periods. The explanation that they were well adapted or their environment didn't change is bogus as the same applies to organisms that supposedly evolved.

There are Forms of life, that have barely changed in millions of years (the cockroach has remained virtually unchanged since 120 million years).
The reason is, those species reached a local maximum in the gigantic landscape of genetic variability. Any change would make it less well adapted to the environment than its ancestors, so the species stays put.

This applies to many species which evolved eg bacteria.

I claim, there is really no such thing as a "living" fossil.

Nonsense.



3) Random mutations is a poor mechanism for generating ever increasing levels of complexity required by the theory. Beneficial mutations are rare and even then usually tend to entail a loss-of-function rather than a gain-of-function.

That is nonsense because on the one side you have single cell organisms like the Amoeba, while at the other end complexity is open ended.

This doesn't refute my point. You'll have to show that random mutations can increase complexity.



4) Multiple lines of evidence for evolution rest on the assumption that similarities across different species is evidence of their shared ancestry. For example, in comparative genomics it is taken for granted that similar DNA sequences across different species show they are related.
Yes. That is correct.

But there is nothing justifying this assumption.

In your opinion, what would be a justification for such an assumption?

Actual observation of shared ancestry across different species. But we both know that can't be observed.



5) Evolution rests on the notion of gradual change over time of one species to another. But this notion is illogical.
Of course it never happened that way. Gradual change was interspersed with huge catasprophic changes in the environment, which killed off up 90% of all life on earth. Tak a look at this BBC video: https://www.youtube.com...

I can't look at the video. Low data. You could link me up with an article that presents the evidence for your claim that 90% of all life on earth was killed. Besides catastrophic changes doesn't contradict gradual evolution only saltation does.



Organisms need multiple, interconnected and interdependent systems to survive and thrive. To get unique species to another, you'll need wholesale changes otherwise the species won't be viable. This counts against the notion of gradual change of a species.
Why does that count against evolution? Could you explain?

Evolution require that whole new classes of animals evolve from an entirely different class eg amphibians from fishes. These different classes of organisms have different physiologies required to survive. For that evolution to occur a massive change in physiology and morphology etc is required. This can't be done gradually or else the resulting species won't be able to survive. Just imagine changing a bike into a car. Can that be done gradually ? Of course, not.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 12:52:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 10:28:25 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/21/2016 3:20:35 AM, Genius_Intellect wrote:
Hawthorn flies are an example of speciation that's occurring right now. When apples were introduced to North America in the 1800s, a sub-population of hawthorn flies adapted to eating apples over hawthorns, and thus became the apple maggot. https://en.wikipedia.org...

Okay. None of this refutes my point though. For example, the hawthorne fly is still a fly.

A "fly" is anything in the taxonomic order Diptera, which has about 125,000 known species. By comparison, Mammalia contains less than 5,500 species. Classifying all flies as the same "kind" of animal is as ridiculous as classifying pigs, cats, and monkeys as one "kind". While fly species don't vary much in shape, they vary in many other respects (I don't know the details, since I'm not an insectologist).

When discussing the evolution of a group, it's important we know that group's taxonomic rank. Higher ranks denote an earlier common ancestor, and thus more variation within the group. Species is the lowest rank. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the others: https://en.wikipedia.org...

"Living fossil" is a figure of speech, describing their morphological similarity to the species we find in the fossil record.

Most species have high competition, which is what drives their selection for certain traits. Low competition means low selection, which is why "living fossils" preserve traits that was selected against in other species.

You are simply giving excuses here. As I said, various species which supposedly evolved had little competition. For example, cyanobacteria is a living fossil, with little competition, and one of the oldest ancestors of all life, yet they exist unchanged for over 3 billion years.

I don't understand what your objection is here. You don't seem to disagree with the explanation, yet you insist it's inadequate.

1. Mutations add information to the genome, allowing more complexity.
2. Beneficial mutations occur all the time.
3. Gain-of-function mutations are common.

Wrong. 'Both theories agree that the vast majority of novel
mutations are neutral or deleterious and that advantageous
mutations are rare, which has been supported by
experimental results.' - from Wikipedia's article on mutations

The chance of an individual mutation being advantageous is small, but there are enough mutations in enough people over enough time that they do stack up. I meant they "occur all the time" in the context of thousands of years; this was vague and misleading, and I apologize.

Correct, some mutations can "hide behind" dominant alleles. However, the individuals with two recessive alleles don't last very long.

Not all of them. For instance, hemophilia is caused by a fairly common harmful mutation.

"Haemophilia is rare, with only about 1 instance in every 10,000 births (or 1 in 5,000 male births) for haemophilia A and 1 in 50,000 births for haemophilia B." - Wikipedia
(https://en.wikipedia.org...)

We have no proof of a designer, but can easily observe that ancestors produce descendants. There's no reason why a designer would create the number of species we see, nor why he'd make some more similar than others; but there is a good reason we'd observe this if all species share a common ancestor and evolved over many millions of years by adapting to different environments.

There's repeated examples of humans using a common design in multiple, varied instances; examples are tyres in various vehicles and transistors in various electronic devices, therefore common design is backed up by experience.

These are all man-made objects. Living things are not man-made. We cannot infer man-made patterns in things that are not man-made.

We only observe ancestry within a species but we don't observe ancestry across species. What is this good reason we observe these similarities, do tell.

"Ancestry across species" is not a scientific term, so I'll have to ask you to define it.

In other words, similarities support the explanation of descent, and neither support nor disprove the explanation of design. Nothing can "disprove" design, because design is not a testable hypothesis.

Design is actually a testable hypothesis. For instance, design theorists predicted function would be found in so-called junk DNA and the ENCODE project verified this.

The term "junk DNA" is no longer used, because it's inaccurate.

ENCODE found biochemical activity. That doesn't mean those regions code for functioning protein.

This doesn't prove a designer in the slightest. It doesn't disprove a designer in the slightest. It says absolutely nothing about designers, intelligent or otherwise.

And where have I shown that i'm misinformed on evolution.

Everywhere. Absolutely everywhere.

Don't just assert. Explain how.

I'm explaining above.

It's not foolish, it's generous - the alternative is that you do understand it and are maliciously lying about it. I don't think you're lying, just that you've read so much creationist propaganda that you wrongly believe yourself an expert on the subject.

So if I understand it I can only deny it if I'm lying about it. Great logic.

If I claim the Earth is flat, would you not assume I'm ignorant or lying? If the Earth was really flat, the round Earth hypothesis would have been disproved two millennia ago. Evolution makes a few predictions as well, which would have been disproved decades ago if the theory was wrong.

RationalWiki has surprisingly decent explanation: http://rationalwiki.org...
Iredia
Posts: 1,608
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 2:34:10 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 12:04:24 PM, MagicAintReal wrote:

What limits?
What about speciation indicates to you that there's a limit?
The only limit is the lifetime of humans which allows us to observe it.
Even with this limit, we've still observed NEW species form from pre-existing ones.
So what indicates to you, other than your arbitrary human life span that there is a limit to speciation?

Not just human lifespan. Recorded history and living fossils also show that species don't change across times that far exceed human lifetimes.


Yeah, but if you agree that the species split into 2 species, what indicates that the split species can't split again?
Why can't you see that enough speciation events would lead to completely different organisms?

See above. The observation that species remain the same counts as very strong evidence against the theory of evolution.


Really?
You don't find the ability to once reproduce viably being lost a big change?
You agree that organisms can be reproductively isolated, but you don't agree that the new reproductively isolated organisms could diverge themselves and become even more reproductively isolated?
Why are you posing arbitrary limits to speciation??
You have no reason to, none.

I have presented one reason. Later on, I'll present another. Besides, why the surprise, evolutionists are the one presenting the claim that runs contrary to experience.


The bacteria whose characteristics allowed them to reproduce and didn't die before reproductive age were fecund, but as the constraints of the ecosystem change, so do the characteristics that will allow the bacteria to live long enough to reproduce.
This is basic stuff man.

Nonsense. Read what you wrote again: 'No, this is disingenuous...SOME species need little variation to maintain reproductive success in a particular ecosystem so they remain very similar, but MOST organisms' gene pools HAD to evolve to proliferate.' I brought the example of bacteria which are reproductively successful in their niche, in fact even across various niche to show that this is wrong.


Nope.
It's the reproductive failures that disqualify certain characteristics, which filters out those organisms with those characteristics, and because they are reproductively failing, their genes don't get passed on...only the genes that will allow the organism to make it to successful reproductive age will remain. This causes variation within and beyond species.

No. Only within a species. Not beyond a species.


Nope.
I'm saying that given no added constraints to a reproductively successful community of organisms, the characteristics that lead the organisms to live long enough to successfully reproduce wouldn't be filtered out by constraints.
The group of organisms' characteristics don't impede the organism.
Organisms whose constraints increase or change drastically may be reproductively impeded given their characteristics and the changing constraints.
Those who can't make it to reproduction don't pass on their genes, and this causes a divergence within species and beyond.

In retrospect, this does nothing to counter the fact that living fossils contradict evolution.


So you didn't bother googling polyploidy, huh?
So you ignore that mutations not only occur in the zygote but they also occur DURING the replication process.
This means that new gene sets are created by mutations DURING the replication process, which leads to MORE gene sets, but then within those gene sets AFTER replication, mutations occur, so within NEW gene sets are NEW genes from mutations DURING AND AFTER the replication process.
It's more, new, functional, information...please actually research polyploidy...

I read Wikipedia's article on mutations and nowhere does it mention this.

'Polyploidy refers to a numerical change in a whole set of chromosomes.' - 'Polyploidy' Wikipedia

Those gene sets aren't new, new gene sets. They are gene sets gotten off the same chromosome.


"Gene family expansion, tissue-specific expression and recruitment of genes to new pathways contributed to the evolution of tuber development. The potato genome sequence provides a platform for genetic improvement of this vital crop."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Nowhere does that article demonstrate a gain-of-dunction mutation. The scientists sequenced the potato genome, found evidence of two duplication events and speculated on its evolution. Furthermore, the polyploid species where less viable, this was called inbreeding depression.


Literally, polyploid offspring will be larger in size than their parents.
This allows the organisms to have different characteristics, or NEW INFORMATION, that wasn't there before...you guys are just losing on this point, because you don't know what polyploidy is...actually research it.

See above.


Now you don't know what confirmed means...
We predicted from HOMOLOGY that humans inherited our structure from the modern apes, but that there were differences that made us exclusively human. When you look at older ape DNA and our DNA you find that 2 ape chromosomes fused together to make our 2nd chromosome and this genetic difference is proportional to the homology and differences between us and the older apes.
Our 2nd chromosome is a fusion of 2 ape chromosomes and this shows a completely different animal to another and you never knew about it or chose to ignore it.
http://genome.cshlp.org...

How did evolutionists know that two ape chromosomes fused to make a human chromosome, that is without assuming evolution in the first place ?


False.
You already admitted that organisms speciate...that means the genes are being transferred across species...

In fact I was wrong to have said that horizontal gene transfer across different species even proves me wrong on that score. In any case, what we observe in speciation is a species diverging from another but remaining within the same genus. Creationists, including myself readily accept the fact of speciation within various gsnera and probably up to the level of a family. I believe this is called macroevolution. But anything above that we don't accept, it is an over-extapolation from the fact of speciation.


What you're saying here is that you believe that evolution can get you down the street, but given enough time and resources it can't get you across the city or the state or the country.

Yes, the changes required will be too much for gradual evolution.


Why are you imposing arbitrary limits on a process you are largely ignorant of?
You may have noticed that I'm a teacher from my profile, and this is my area man...not once in any of my evolutionary studies has anything indicated a limit to speciation...none. What is your limit, and why?

1) What we see, what historical records and living fossils tell us is that species can and do remain the same.
2) To get an entirely new species from another you need lots of changes occurring in concert. It is impossible for random mutations to achieve this.
3) While there is some level of plasticity to the genomes of various lifeforms they are also quite resistant to change. Mutating some parts of the genome leads to fatal genetic disorders. This stands as another limit to speciation.
Porn babes be distracting me. Dudes be stealing me stuff. I'm all about the cash from now. I'm not playing Jesus anymore.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:04:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 1:42:55 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:23:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The ignorant and uneducated continuously cease to amaze me.

I do wonder why believers who constantly deny/reject evolution never bother to get any understanding of the subject matter, but instead make up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, pretending they're smart.

Very foolish. Not every one who denies evolution misunderstands it.

The OP shows in spades you have no idea what you're talking about. How is anyone supposed to answer questions about evolution when the questions have nothing to do with evolution?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2016 3:07:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/21/2016 2:02:21 AM, Edlvsjd wrote:
At 10/21/2016 1:42:55 AM, Iredia wrote:
At 10/20/2016 11:23:21 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
The ignorant and uneducated continuously cease to amaze me.

I do wonder why believers who constantly deny/reject evolution never bother to get any understanding of the subject matter, but instead make up all kinds of ridiculous nonsense, pretending they're smart.

Very foolish. Not every one who denies evolution misunderstands it.

That's good ole Dan for ya, nothing even relative or intellectual to add to the the conversation, just an unexplained "nuh-uh, dumba$$" to anyone who disagrees with him, if I were you, I would ignore his engagements, he is incapable of seeing the other side of the dichotomy.

Says the troll of the Science forum. There is no other side, your claims of a flat earth are completely insane. You have had much explained to you in great detail, you have been offered to be shown yourself the hard facts, but have refused to do so, you purposely insult those who have died in the pursuit of knowledge and understanding because you are brain dead moron. This is what you bring to the Science forum, a$$hole.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth