The Godless Heathens vs Everyone Else

UPDATE 2; Brit has yet to provide anything close to proof, relying instead on ‘logical arguments’ and quote mining as opposed to physical proof. For the last two weeks she’s been giving us nothing but excuses, so I’m guessing that we’re not going to be getting anything of substance. Case closed, I guess.

UPDATE; anyone with a good understanding of science who wants to correct any of my answers would be great. I’d appreciate it if anyone wants to send this to either a Creation Scientist or a real scientist.

Ok, let’s get this done. The theists get to present their arguments/rationales first. Any and all commentators are welcome to participate in this discussion. I would prefer it if folks kept things civil, but realistically I know that I have no power to enforce that – and I’m a prick at the best of times so it’s hypocritical of me to lecture.

I thought I’d do something of a checklist up here so that readers can play creationist bingo and perhaps encourage any creationists reading this to come up with something better. Of course if anyone thinks I’m wrong please comment below and offer corrections.

Evolution is only a theory. 
Most people think a theory falls in the middle of hypothesis and law, but that’s wrong. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” Nothing really changes a theory into a law. So when science talks about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they aint saying its not true.All sciences rely on indirect evidence. You can’t see subatomic particles, so they look for the trails left by them in cloud chambers.

Evolution is not testable.
In my first comment below there are some links to tests.

Some scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
Whenever someone says this ask them for a citation from someone who isn’t Darwin (The something something eye, something something creation) or anyone from before Newton. Or Ken Ham for that matter.No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies where as the ones that don’t are pretty dead in the water. Creationists respond by saying that there is a conspiracy against them and their truth. I’m sure we all know how that goes.

The disagreements among scientists show how little solid science supports evolution.
Like all the branches of Christianity or are they just not true Scotsmen? Scientists are paid to disagree with each other and get grants to test other peoples theories. They like to use their minds critically – ask them to chime in on the Goku vs Superman vs Hulk vs Whoever the Fuck and see what happens.Creationists have taken SJ Gould’s work and chopped it up to make it seem that he had doubted evolution, and they present punctuated equilibrium as though it allows new species to materialize overnight or birds to be born from reptile eggs. A simple ‘citation needed’ suffices here.

If we come from monkeys…
Kill it with fire. The person asking this does not know what evolution is. Sit them down with the wikipedia page and go through it with them. If they refuse and start using their ‘l0jik’ on you ask them why Chinese still exists as a language when Japanese is descended from it.

Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
Yup. Doesn’t pretend to. Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science’s current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics …
I will hunt you down Ken Hovind and Josh Furgerstienwhateveryournameis. The person saying this does not understand thermodynamics. If what they’re saying is correct then crystals and snowflakes would be impossible, because they, too, are complex structures that form spontaneously from disordered parts.

The Second Law actually states that the total entropy of a closed system (one that no energy or matter leaves or enters) cannot decrease. Entropy is a physical concept often casually described as disorder, but it differs significantly from the conversational use of the word.

More important, however, the Second Law permits parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts experience an offsetting increase. Basically, as long as we are not in a closed environment we can continue growing.

Mutations cannot produce new features.
Citation needed. Many traits produce changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA. A good example of this is bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Here’s some science on how it works.

Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Links below.

There’s no Crocaduck!
Or, in Real People Speak; there aren’t any ‘inbetween fossisls’. Actually, there are.  One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs.Then there’s Tiktalic. Then there’s Homo Hydlbergensis (spl?) I could go on. We know whales had four-legged ancestors known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids  fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds–it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want science to produce a Crocoduck.

The eye is too complex… 

This is an “argument from design” and you should feel bad for the person using it. Our eyes are ridiculously simple compared to a hawks for example. Our eyes are simply evolved to suit the feeding hours of a diurnal primate.

Update; Evolution is based on circular reasoning.

Ok, so we’re playing bingo again.

Survival of the fittest is a way to describe natural selection, and if you wanted to get into it in more technical detail you should read this. In short, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, you can measure their success by how many offspring they produce under given circumstances. See Dr PR Grants Finch research for some examples. The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances (see Grant’s Finches).

I’m sure there are others. Feel free to mention some in the comments.

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “The Godless Heathens vs Everyone Else

  1. I’m bringing my tweet to this forum for further elaboration and debate. Come and go as you have time.

    My original tweet was about how macroevolution is crumbling today due to a lack of evidence.

    A big claim. I know. But besides things that look the same, simply correlation, there is zero evidence. I believe in microevolution and adaptation. But I believe macroevolution exaggerates both aforementioned scientific concepts.

    I understand evolutionists hold that microevolution and macroevolution is one in the same. But creationists hold that microevolution and creationism is one in the same.

    Both perspectives can’t be right scientifically because they’re too opposite. But I believe both take a certain level of faith to believe. And I’m on the side of the latter.

    Like

    1. Faith is the complete confidence of someone or something. I like how the bible defined it too “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Hebrews 11:1)

      Because not everything can be fully known and we aren’t personally firsthand eyewitnesses of everything that can be, there’s an element of faith in everything that we believe.

      Like

  2. As for your first question. I have faith that scientists have seen micro level evolution (evolutionary adaptations over a reasonably short period of time). Therefore I trust scientists with their drawn conclusion that species change, evolve throughout time. But to stretch that to speciation, species transitioning into other species, has not been observed. It’s unobservable. Just like there’s no one remaining from when the universe was created (if it was created). Therefore both are unobservable beliefs, that cannot be reproduced nor experimented on, therefore both require a certain level of faith (level of commitment and trust) to believe fully. Both creationism and evolution are constructs from scientific facts, but one drew the incorrect conclusion about the beginning of time. Which one? That is the age old question.

    Like

    1. Is it an act of faith to accept that the small observable changes witnessable in your lifetime, will continue to occur after you’ve gone? Isn’t it simply logically extrapolating from the available evidence?
      Also, does projecting an observed process into the future based on both the evidence it occurred prior to your presence (fossils etc) and continuation during your existence (microevolution) require faith of the same order as a belief in all powerful supernatural being?

      Lastly, can faith be considered a reliable way of figuring out what is true?
      Is it possible to have faith in things that aren’t true?

      Ash

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Is it an act of faith to accept that the small observable changes witnessable in your lifetime, will continue to occur after you’ve gone?” To a certain degree yes. But for the sake of not playing with words and semantics, that is NOT the “faith” I am talking about. Borrowing from SheepDip’s “faith” components (which I don’t disagree with), what I am saying is due to a lack of evidence it takes confidence and belief in macroevolution (speciation that is, http://www.discovery.org/a/10661 ) The exaggeration and credit it gives itself is impressive. Adaptation is one thing. Speciation is another. I will elaborate further in another comment.

        “Isn’t it simply logically extrapolating from the available evidence?” Oh it’s definitely extrapolating, but unfortunately not very logically. At least not using the logic of true scientific reasoning. Basically (in layman terms) evidence shows pre-existing living things adapting to certain conditions in their environment, but still intrinsically remaining within their species. We’ll find many examples of “evolving” in the sense of adaptation, as adaptation has been proven. The error is in trying to exaggerate adaptation processes and speciation processes, and pass them off as one and the same without any example of certain and irrefutable evidence showing one species becoming another species. “It takes time” they say. Well I’ll elaborate on that idea in my next comment too.
        
”Also, does projecting an observed process into the future based on both the evidence it occurred prior to your presence (fossils etc) and continuation during your existence (microevolution) require faith of the same order as a belief in all powerful supernatural being?” That’s a loaded question. That’s a fallacy. It’s assuming there is evidence of macroevolution via fossil record, and that it’s slowly, (but surely) continuing today. And because there is no evidence of this today, this question is unanswerable. But I’ll entertain the question and say no. Because there’s no evidence of evolution in the way Darwin explained it, it doesn’t require “faith of the same order” as a belief in God. It takes more faith than a belief in God. But in a great attempt to discuss evolution only, and not straying into a debate over the antithesis (intelligent design), I digress.

        “Lastly, can faith be considered a reliable way of figuring out what is true?” No. Faith isn’t about figuring out what’s true. It’s either a lens through which you see what is true or a lens through which you believe what is true. Sounds close to the same I know, and your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. But I’ll step into philosophy for a sec and answer the best I can so that I answer your question. Science, reason, and philosophy have a certain level of overlapping lines anyway. So… Faith is the gap between what is known and what isn’t known. Evolutionists claim they don’t fill in gaps (claiming they don’t have faith), but they indeed have a God-of-the gaps. Evolutionists don’t just stop at what is known about the world by the self-proclaimed infallible process of scientific method. Take adaptation for instance. Instead of just stopping at the conclusion we currently have, that living things adapt to the current conditions in their environment (period), evolutionists make the bold and lethal claim that through evolving everything in the entire universe began (quotes from evolutionists here: http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/05/you-wont-believe-what-evolutionists.html?m=1 ) I’m just giving an example of large leaps of faith the majority of “scientists” (which are also evolutionists) have succumb to. They don’t stop while they’re ahead. They get ahead of themselves. They too count their chickens before they hatch and they too are guilty of believing in a God of the gaps. So it’s quite interesting how when you ask questions about the origins of life they pride themselves on the ability to confidently say “I don’t know” as if they don’t fill in blanks at all, ever.
        
”Is it possible to have faith in things that aren’t true?” Yes. And that’s what evolutionists and many other faiths have. They have faith in something that’s not true. Someone’s right though. The question is who?

        {DISCLAIMER: I hardly proofread this so I sincerely apologize for any grammar issues, if any}

        Like

  3. Ok, I’m back and let see what we have here.

    ‘But besides things that look the same, simply correlation, there is zero evidence.’

    I have two answers for this – firstly a simple logic extrapolation. Everyone sees lights in the sky at night, but that does not mean there are stars – we see lights and dots when we’ve had a rush of blood to the head and craning our necks to look up at things can sure do that to us. So, by an extrapolation of your own logic, there aint no stars.

    Secondly; evidence. We linked you some things before, but lets go for another list.

    Transition Fossils
    Realistically every creature is a transitioning from one animal into another. Life is plastic to its environment and changes to match it as best it can.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
    http://www.transitionalfossils.com/
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
    http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/all-fossils-are-transitional-fossils.html
    http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis/transitional-fossils-are-not-rare
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse – highly recommend this link
    http://evolutionfaq.com/videos/transitional-fossils – oh yeah, gotta see this one

    Mammalian Anatomy
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22686855
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22739749
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_05

    Genetics
    http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675.full
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/324/5926/522.full
    http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000112
    https://www.ndsu.edu/pubweb/~mcclean/plsc431/mendel/mendel1.htm

    Convergent evolution/adaptation
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/convergent_evolution.htm
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_examples_of_convergent_evolution
    http://study.com/academy/lesson/convergent-evolution-examples-definition-quiz.html

    http://evolution.about.com/od/macroevolution/a/Convergent-Evolution.htm – this one has an annoying video about the titanic in the page, but it should be mutable

    Observable examples of evolution
    http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolution-is-real.php
    https://askabiologist.asu.edu/sites/default/files/PepperMoth/pepper-moths.swf
    http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
    http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/august/bp_060810mussels.cfm?type=n
    http://www.livescience.com/954-mussels-evolve-evolutionary-heartbeat.html
    http://ianchadwick.com/blog/seeing-evolution-in-action/
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

    http://evolution.about.com/od/evidence/a/Drug-Resistance-In-Bacteria.htm – again, another annoying video on the page
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab/

    http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/160/160S13_4.html

    Vestigial traits/redundancies

    http://io9.gizmodo.com/5829687/10-vestigial-traits-you-didnt-know-you-had
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigiality

    If I’ve missed any, I’m sure they’re here
    http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

    Now, I appreciate that that’s a lot of links. If you don’t fancy reading all of it, go on youtube and search for ‘proof of evolution’. TakeThatDarwin and TheoryFail on twitter are also great resources for information in handy bitesized chunks.

    ‘I believe in microevolution and adaptation. But I believe macroevolution exaggerates both aforementioned scientific concepts.’

    Lets put it this way; microevolution is small changes over a long time. Macroevolution is the result of all those small changes over an even longer time – by a factor of about a hundred say. So, just to give a workable metric, lets take a cow. Lets say that that cow is put into a new environment, a swamp land for example. Over five hundred years some of the cows offspring adapt one new trait to help them deal with the swamp more effectively. A clear example of Microevolution. Now lets say that one change or adaptation occurs within every five hundred years for this group of cows. Over thirteen thousand years that’s twenty six changes. I don’t know what that might be, but it would be helpful in that environment. By this point we would be calling them ‘swamp cattle’ or something. Fast forward another thirteen thousand years and assuming a continuous rate of change then there would be fifty two difference between them and the starting cow. Still microevolution? What about after another thirteen thousand years? And another? When does the micro become macro? That’s really up for those who make the distinction to decide as the rest of the world just calls that evolution.

    ‘I understand evolutionists hold that microevolution and macroevolution is one in the same. But creationists hold that microevolution and creationism is one in the same.’

    Citation needed. I have no real point of contention at this, as its bizarrely irrelevant, but I have never heard that come out of a creationists mouth.

    ‘Both perspectives can’t be right scientifically because they’re too opposite. But I believe both take a certain level of faith to believe. And I’m on the side of the latter.’

    A good selection of the religious scientists out there say that evolution is simply the tool by which god creates things. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/19/religious-understandings-of-science_n_4811085.html
    Can they both be scientifically right or are they mutually exclusive? Well, you’d have to come up with some scientific evidence for creation – I’ll head you off at the pass there and give you a video of some https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZzTNqiOByo&list=PL0399DF3015CFDD28
    Lets get onto the topic of ‘Does evolution require faith’ because I can see us spiraling dramatically towards it.
    Faith generally has two definitions: “Confidence,” and “Belief Without Evidence.” I have confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow because of a basic understanding of physics and cosmology and decades of observation. I don’t use the word “faith” in this way because we have a perfectly good word for it: “confidence.” I use the word faith in the second way, the religious way.
    If we want to argue semantics, we can claim that evolution is based on faith because we have faith (confidence) in the scientific method, or faith (in the evidence), or faith (confidence) in this, that or the other thing, but as I mentioned, that is playing with the meaning of words and not actually saying anything.
    Evolution is based on over 150 years worth of hard scientific evidence. By definition that means it has nothing to do with faith. The only people who claim it does are the ignorant evolution deniers who desperately try to make evolution seem as flimsy as their religion to hold onto their beliefs.
    Its the ‘You’re just as bad as me argument’ and whilst some atheists who are just mad at their dad are like that, the scientific community are not.
    The Theory of Evolution is not in any meaningful sense believed on faith. Faith is believing in something with insufficient evidence to justify that belief, or directly in the face of evidence that disproves that belief. Evolution is a proven, demonstrable fact of nature, it requires no faith to believe in.

    ‘As for your first question. I have faith that scientists have seen micro level evolution (evolutionary adaptations over a reasonably short period of time).’

    Like the mussels and crabs and lizards mentioned above?

    ‘Therefore I trust scientists with their drawn conclusion that species change, evolve throughout time. But to stretch that to speciation, species transitioning into other species, has not been observed.’
    The definition of speciation is ‘Speciation is the evolutionary process by which reproductively isolated biological populations evolve to become distinct species’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation). This boils down to ‘If I can’t make babies with it we’re a different species’ with the examples of hybrid creatures (liger, etc). Have we got any examples of speciation happening right now?
    Well, would you look at that…
    http://www.hhmi.org/biointeractive/anole-lizards-example-speciation
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_45
    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
    http://education.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/
    http://study.com/academy/lesson/temporal-isolation-example-definition-quiz.html

    ‘It’s unobservable.’
    Citation needed.

    ‘Just like there’s no one remaining from when the universe was created (if it was created).’
    I’m so glad you said ‘IF’.

    ‘Therefore both are unobservable beliefs, that cannot be reproduced nor experimented on…’
    There’s a whole field of study just waiting to prove you wrong.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evolution
    http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v4/n6/abs/nrg1088.html
    http://biology.ucr.edu/people/faculty/Garland/ExperimentalEvolution.html
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

    ‘… therefore both require a certain level of faith (level of commitment and trust) to believe fully. Both creationism and evolution are constructs from scientific facts…’

    Citation needed; what scientific facts support creation and where are the texts that build, from the ground up, the theory of creation?
    I can show you some folks trying to claim that and failing utterly.
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danthropology/2014/08/ken-hams-10-facts-that-prove-creationism-debunked/?repeat=w3tc
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against_a_recent_creation

    ‘…but one drew the incorrect conclusion about the beginning of time. Which one? That is the age old question.’
    This is a relatively recent question – by about a hundred years or so. What the ages old question really is, is which god do I choose? Will I be killed for worshiping this one or that one? Which god seems strongest? Which Gods followers are the nicest? That’s the age old question.
    We’ve come a long way from such things.

    If I have a conclusion here it is that faith is the belief in unproven things is inherently wrong. Not evil, just wrong. Why? Because if you’ll believe one lie unquestioningly, then you’ll believe another. Watch The Crucible if you don’t believe me.

    Like

    1. Okay. I have more to reply and I will in a bit. It’s 9:28pm here (Oklahoma) and my family has traditions that I’ll need to tend to for the next couple of hours (like cooking then eating dinner together, night baths, rocking the baby to sleep, preparation for tomorrow’s church service {go figure}, etc). So I do intend on hitting the points you wanted me to hit on as well as the points I said I’d expound upon, but you gotta be fair and let me live my regular life too. (Well I guess you don’t have to be fair) but you left me with a lot of ground to cover. Yes I agreed to cover it and am interested in covering it but it takes does take time. Time I’m not as fortunate as you to have as often in a day. I will be back as soon as I can and my next response will touch on everything I said I would. I promise.

      Like

    2. I know I have more that I agreed to cover but here’s the first part of my replies to your original comment for now. It’s midnight here and tomorrow’s another busy day on the grind (Sunday, church day/family day since hubby and I are both off) So I won’t make any promises that I’ll be able to return tomorrow to finish responding. But I do promise I will indeed return and finish this response I started. Thanks!

      1. I peeped your wiki link and
      There’s no real such thing as a “transitional fossil”. Big claim I know (just like evolutionists, I’m full of them.) Transitional fossils are a concept of evolution used to prove evolution. Its a fallacy to use as evidence due to such circular reasoning. It’s like saying circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. And even assuming transitional fossils are a real scientific thing, I agree with the statement in the wiki link “it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.” (Citation was needed for this one, so: http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/transitional_fossils ). Reading the article that wiki cited brings me to another point.

      2. Circular reasoning. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos11.htm (Besides the intro paragraph that pays homage to creationism, which is distracting for this debate as it is tempting to stray toward for discussion, but beyond that, that’s a decent link to explain what I’m trying to say). Evolutionists are riddled with circular reasoning. To prove evolution evolutionists strictly use evolutionary thought and concepts, and then when someone questions the evolutionary idea, the evolutionists again use evolutionary principles to prove evolution. That’s like using the bible to prove the bible. (Which many, not all, but many do, and as you well probably know this too is highly criticized for being done, as it should be, because it makes for poor debate as well as poor objective reasoning.) Lets get a shared definition of what science is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science So how about evolutionists try using science to prove the theory of evolution instead? The answer back would more than likely be “evolution is science” or “evolution was created from science.” Says who? Evolutionists! Circular reasoning.

      3. Response to your YouTube link about the fossil record pics: So as not to unnecessarily recreate the wheel, and for the sake of your time and mine, I’ll refer to this link again instead of introducing another http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And I’ll quote it for my response “The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record.  All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress ‘under construction’. That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name.  If evolution’s continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion.  For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing.  The whole process is random trial and error, without direction.  So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction.  It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts.  Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day.  He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: ‘The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous.  Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.’ ”
      4. Response to your Mammalian anatomy link: “When a fossil is called ‘transitional’ between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent.” (Quoted from http://www.transitionalfossils.com ) It is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.” (Rusty Cashman quoted within your wiki link). Furthermore here’s a link to a paper with other points that are interesting on this topic http://www.rae.org/pdf/FAQ01.pdf ) Try to ignore its inclusion in discussion regarding creationism so that we stay on the topic we’re talking about.
      5. No response to your genetics link as I don’t have a disagreement with you on this topic as of yet. I already believe , understand, and know about DNA and genetics.
      6. In response to convergent evolution vid (the accent guy vid): I’ll refer to that same link I posted earlier and quote something from it “Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it – everything… Evolutionists often say ‘it evolved’, but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.” I’ll admit this doesn’t disprove evolution. But showing a picture or video of how convergent evolution works certainly doesn’t prove it either. What would? A tried and true list of molecular steps would suffice, if only there were such a thing.

      Like

  4. I noticed you want to play bingo. I wish you could see my surprised face (see I can be sarcastic too). I’m opting to give everyone a blackout so we can move past this ridiculous trend of this game on debate forums. I thought just the religious played it and I’m saddened to see atheists have succumb to it as well. Allow me to chastise for a sec: It’s extremely unoriginal and petty. I’m definitely not going to shy away from a good point (and I hope no one would on any other concept they disagreed with) because of a sport of snarkiness like debate bingo. I’m sure there’s more to atheists than behaving like snarks so I thought I’d get the game out of the way so we can move on to seeing that side. I know plenty of atheists that can do without being that way, so I’ll too give everyone here the benefit of the doubt.
    1. “Evolution is only a theory.” Irrelevant to me whether it’s true or not and what anyone’s definition of a theory is. My only concern is if it’s true or false and what evidence there is to support whichever side.
    2. “Evolution is not testable.” See my following comments to SheepDip and Ash.
    3. “Some scientists doubt the truth of evolution.” This is an appeal to authority argument so it’s irrelevant whether this premise is true or false. I ONLY discuss it when someone erroneously says “all” scientists agree that evolution is a fact. And the purpose of my discussing it is for the sole purpose of correcting their misinformation but definitely never as evidence for them or against them.
    4. “The disagreements among scientists show how little solid science supports evolution.” I will have to agree that this is highly irrelevant. The argument doesn’t matter no matter who it’s used on. Whether against the secular or against the religious. Both are classifications of infallible people with plenty disagreement within their subject matter of “expertise”. I see it as dodging the point.
    5. “If we come from monkeys…”
    I see this one but don’t use it. It’s not received well so I don’t waste my time starting a sentence with it to an evolutionist. However saying because someone forms an argument an evolutionist is tired of hearing doesn’t invalidate the value of the argument any more than me tiring of hearing certain things from atheists toward Christianity. It also doesn’t mean someone is uneducated on the topic just because they disagree. That’s an arrogant assumption posited from presuming you’re right and everyone else is wrong. I’m guilty of being dogmatic and uncompromising about my beliefs too at times. Moreso when I was a skeptic. Less now, but I still do it. But if I admit it, I believe atheists ought to too. No organism on this earth today is omniscient enough to be justified in behaving so haughtily.
    6. “Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.” I know most skeptics don’t shy away from admitting that they don’t “know it all”, and are quite proud of what they believe is an ability to resist filling in the gaps without facts as they accuse the religious of doing. But I believe evolution is as much of a “God of the gaps” as the Tri-une God I believe in. I expound upon this a bit in one of my next comments too. (Note: “But even if life on earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin, evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies.” It has been “robustly confirmed countless” by “microevolutionary studies” and there’s no such thing as a “macroevolutionary study”. Such a belief can’t be studied, it can can only be sought out to study, due to no evidence. But I’m getting ahead of myself. See my fuller -still a touch-and-go, not exhaustive- argument below.
    7. “The Second Law of Thermodynamics …” Your anticipatory response to this was doesn’t debunk what I would’ve mentioned about it, but I have enough to work with to leave this argument alone.
    8. “Mutations cannot produce new features.” I read your article in this category and I’ll say more about that in my following comment too. Also I noticed you cleverly mistitled the opposing argument, unless you’re using the words “information” and “features” interchangeably as shared definitions. If not, then let me be clear. The issue is not that mutations can’t produce new features it’s that mutations can’t produce new information. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html So this is still at issue. And it is an issue I intend to briefly (extremely briefly) touch on in my fuller comment. But if you want a decent list of citations and reasoning the link below has that. Although it’s a long exhausting article I still don’t think it’s exhaustive (as I believe there’s still more territory that could’ve been covered). [Further Note: bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evolution. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572 ]
    9. “Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.” I’ll address your links in a fuller reply.
    10. “There’s no Crocaduck!” Sigh… I could go through each famous fossil you named and then dig up (pun intended) some others and state how it’s possible they’re inaccurate assumptions too, but instead (for the sake of brevity and not being obsessed with this debate enough to not move on with my life) I’ll just say this about the first one you posted: Archaeopteryx. Although it seems to be the first proven bird-appearing creature (idk, I haven’t looked into it a whole bunch so I’m just going to have to trust your word and your link for it for now), there were other birds at the time http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html also there’s another possible bird-appearing discovery in the works http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/inconsistent_reasoning_governs038061.html It seems like evolutionists could be counting their chickens before they hatch (pun intended). Which wouldn’t surprise me.
    11. “The eye is too complex…” Although your response was doesn’t fully satisfy the subject matter of the position, I’ll not discuss this much further as I’ll chalk that up to you desiring to be brief. Although, I must point out my original tweet (the very first one that spawned this intriguing debate) was about how evolution is crumbling. It was not a tweet about proving the antithesis of evolution (intelligent design). So I’m going to try to stay on topic as much as everyone’s responses allows.

    Like

  5. You’ve sure given me a whole load to muck through. So this will have to be in two parts – as my gf has been on the computer all day and is now snarking at me to get off.

    “…what I am saying is due to a lack of evidence it takes confidence and belief in macroevolution (speciation that is, http://www.discovery.org/a/10661 )”

    Here you go with this lack of evidence business again. Did you not look at any of the links I provided? Do you want more?
    Guppies http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/sex/guppy/low_bandwidth.html
    Prions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion
    Pesticide resistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide_resistance

    Ah, the discovery institute, we meet again. I’ll do a Blog post all about how Jonathan Wells isn’t very good at his job. Please feel free to read it. I’ll do a proper response to that article you linked there, but for the moment lets deal with the specific reason you linked it.

    Wells does not disprove speciation. To quote his paper;

    “If Darwinian theory were true, “we should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil (http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/benton/reprints/2003eolss.html) record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.” Furthermore, “we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds) and fish with amphibians (http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/).””
    Links are my own insertions. I think you’ll find ample evidence that I have already linked to in the ‘Observable examples of evolution’ part of my comment that contradicts this. But let’s also have a look at some other evidence. Vestigial limbs (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#atavisms_ex1).

    “Oh it’s definitely extrapolating, but unfortunately not very logically.”
    Citation needed.

    “Basically (in layman terms) evidence shows pre-existing living things adapting to certain conditions in their environment, but still intrinsically remaining within their species (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodhocetus). We’ll find many examples of “evolving” in the sense of adaptation, as adaptation has been proven.”

    Again, links are my own. The trouble you seem to be having here is that you don’t realise that if adaptation is real then, by extension, evolution is also real. There’s a funny experiment that palaeontologists like to play on people where they line up a bunch of primate, early human and modern human skulls in order of age. People are able to tell the difference between the human skull at the front and the ape skull at the back but they get all muddled in the middle and can’t tell if they’re human or apes.

    “The error is in trying to exaggerate adaptation processes and speciation processes, and pass them off as one and the same without any example of certain and irrefutable evidence showing one species becoming another species.”
    Bit of a strawman; when do evolutionary biologists say that one species become another? One species does not “turn into” another or several other species — not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the “parent” population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won’t, or they won’t be successful if they try.
    Evolution does not stop once a species becomes a species. Every population of living organisms is undergoing some sort of evolution, though the degree and speed of the process varies greatly from one group to another. Populations that experience a major change in environmental conditions, whether that change comes in the form of a new predator or a new island to disperse to, evolve much more quickly than do populations in a more stable set of conditions. This is because evolution is driven by natural selection, and because when the environment changes, selective pressures change, favoring one portion of the population more heavily than it was favored before the change.

    “… assuming there is evidence of macroevolution via fossil record, and that it’s slowly, (but surely) continuing today. And because there is no evidence of this today, this question is unanswerable.”
    Like all the evidence in the links I provided. Like many before you, creationists have said to me “I accept microevolution, but not macroevolution.” Microevolution is supposed to be evolution that doesn’t result in a new species, and macroevolution is supposed to be evolution that does lead to a new species. This argument is akin to someone saying that while one believes that wind can sometimes erode rock, one doesn’t believe it can change the rock’s shape. Micro- and macroevolution describe the same process, but with a difference in operational time. If one accepts microevolution, they must also accept macroevolution, since the former inevitably leads to the latter if given a long enough time period and the separation of breeding isolates.
    Some creationists have abandoned the attempt to deny that new species can appear (and disappear) by natural means, in favor of drawing a barrier, not between species, but between baramins (also known as “kinds” http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Baramin), some sort of collection larger than species. To date, there has not been given any indication of just what sort of a thing a baramin is, what is the nature of the barrier between baramins, or how one might detect the barrier (or suspect its non-existence) in any particular case, other than the uninformative “baramins are those things that present a barrier to evolution.” You mentioned circular reasoning earlier…

    “Lastly, can faith be considered a reliable way of figuring out what is true?” No. Faith isn’t about figuring out what’s true. It’s either a lens through which you see what is true or a lens through which you believe what is true.”
    Faith is rose tinted glasses.

    “Sounds close to the same I know, and your question is a philosophical one, not a scientific one.”
    No, my premise is that Faith is what you believe but cannot prove. Facts are what you know and can prove. You mention faith being the gap between what is known and what isn’t known; that’s fine for a working hypothesis. What I have, as I stated before, is confidence in the evidence and formula.

    “… but they indeed have a God-of-the gaps (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps). Evolutionists don’t just stop at what is known about the world by the self-proclaimed infallible process of scientific method.”
    Citation needed. I am only familiar with the God of the gaps as a theist concept – everything that isn’t immediately obvious and explained by science is God doing his magic whatever. (My own link, of course.)

    “Take adaptation for instance. Instead of just stopping at the conclusion we currently have, that living things adapt to the current conditions in their environment (period), evolutionists make the bold and lethal claim that through evolving everything in the entire universe began.”
    No they don’t. Your link is a great big load of misquotes (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Darwin_on_evolution_of_the_eye#Misquotes), cherry picking and misrepresentation. This is very common among creationists – remember Manny and the Trex soft tissue? One creationist claim is that there is a lack of support for evolution among scientists. “Interestingly, ever since Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was published in 1859, various aspects of the theory have been a matter of considerable disagreement even among top evolutionary scientists.” To counter this claim one need only note that scientists’ disagreements are about details over the way that evolution functions – and not about the historical fact of it.

    “I’m just giving an example of large leaps of faith the majority of “scientists” (which are also evolutionists) have succumb to. They don’t stop while they’re ahead. They get ahead of themselves. They too count their chickens before they hatch and they too are guilty of believing in a God of the gaps.”
    I don’t think you understand what the god of the gaps is.

    “So it’s quite interesting how when you ask questions about the origins of life they pride themselves on the ability to confidently say “I don’t know” as if they don’t fill in blanks at all, ever.
”Is it possible to have faith in things that aren’t true?” Yes. And that’s what evolutionists and many other faiths have. They have faith in something that’s not true. Someone’s right though. The question is who?”

    First and foremost, evolution is constantly changing as the understanding of the mechanisms of genes, gene expression, etc. are vastly expanded. The modern synthesis shows how much evolution has changed since Darwin’s time, and how much more it may change.
    The problem with this claim is that the premise is downright false; evolution isn’t seen as sacred. You seem to believe that if someone defends an idea, no matter how well established in science, they are defending it as though it were sacred. This is incorrect because you are only defending the facts. There is nothing sacrosanct about the evolutionary theory – it is defended in the same way that the Theory of Gravity or Heliocentric Theory is defended. It is only the action of scientists defending science and facts from non-science and interference. All evidence is welcome, but if they think its shit they’ll say so.
    Finally, hypocritically, all creationist organizations require all of their employees to follow Statements of faith (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Statements_of_faith), in order to ensure that they do not uncover evidence that will potentially contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.

    “I peeped your wiki link and there’s no such thing as a “transitional fossil”. Big claim I know (just like evolutionists, I’m full of them.) Transitional fossils are a concept of evolution used to prove evolution. It’s a fallacy to use as evidence due to such circular reasoning. It’s like saying circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works. And even assuming transitional fossils are a real scientific thing, I agree with the statement in the wiki link “it cannot be assumed that transitional fossils are direct ancestors of more recent groups, though they are frequently used as models for such ancestors.” (Citation was needed for this one, so: http://www.gutenberg.us/articles/transitional_fossils ).”
    Sigh (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-fossil-fallacy/). Go back and look at some of the other ones if you have too and try that statement again.

    “Circular reasoning. http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/12fos11.htm Evolutionists are riddled with circular reasoning. To prove evolution evolutionists strictly use evolutionary thought and concepts, and then when someone questions the evolutionary idea, the evolutionists again use evolutionary principles to prove evolution. That’s like using the bible to prove the bible. Let’s get a shared definition of what science is: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science So how about evolutionists try using science to prove the theory of evolution instead? The answer back would more than likely be “evolution is science” or “evolution was created from science.” Says who? Evolutionists! Circular reasoning.
    Mathematically prove flowers. Chemically prove Christ. Theologically prove rocks. We have these tools that are designed for the purpose of study and testing the theories they are created from and for. I’m sorry to say, but evolution is science and the methods used to test it are the result of scientific inquirey.

    “Response to your YouTube link about the fossil record pics: So as not to unnecessarily recreate the wheel, and for the sake of your time and mine, I’ll refer to this link again instead of introducing another http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html And I’ll quote it for my response “The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress ‘under construction’.”
    Yes they are. They all are. Everything is in the state of construction (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uops-eon011209.php). I refer to the reference of old and new parts (http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_05/d_05_cr/d_05_cr_her/d_05_cr_her.html).

    “That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution’s continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: ‘The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.’ ””
    Here is a link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter9.html) to the origin of your quotation. And here is a link to the most common misquotations of Darwin (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part2.html). Careful, your Argument from Authority is showing again.

    Part two coming soon.

    Like

  6. You’ve said you don’t want to stray into a debate about ‘intelligent design’, am I to take that to mean you’d rather not discuss ‘intelligent design m’ and stick to your criticisms of evolution instead, or am I misunderstanding your point?

    Like

      1. But we are talking about two theories that are competing to best describe precisely the same phenomena. It makes more sense to me that a conversation of that sort should be more of a side by side comparison -with each theory being subjected to the same evidentiary rigour – to see which makes the more verifiable, falsifiable claims.
        What you’re suggesting seems very one sided.

        Like

      2. The initial premise here was that Brit could prove evolution was false. I’m still waiting for her to do that. Once we have that sorted – either she gives up, or we do – then we can move on to intelligent design.
        Its one sided for a reason – she made a claim and now she is trying to back it up.

        Like

  7. Oh, just a quick thought, Brit.

    ‘I believe in microevolution and adaptation. But I believe macroevolution exaggerates both aforementioned scientific concepts.’

    Then you believe that some species just vanished and others just appeared all throughout the geological timeline. Pop, there were dinosaurs, pop now their gone, pop here’s some pigs. Kinda silly.

    Like

  8. Part two of my response to Brit.

    “Response to your Mammalian anatomy link: “When a fossil is called ‘transitional’ between two types of animal, that means it shows some of the traits of both, but it does not mean it links those animals by direct descent.” (Quoted from http://www.transitionalfossils.com ) It is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.” (Rusty Cashman quoted within your wiki link). Furthermore here’s a link to a paper with other points that are interesting on this topic http://www.rae.org/pdf/FAQ01.pdf ) Try to ignore its inclusion in discussion regarding creationism so that we stay on the topic we’re talking about.”

    I’m going to quote the line directly down from the one you quoted; “In short, transitional fossils are best thought of as being close relatives of the species which actually link two groups. They may have lived at the same time as those actual links, or they may not have (this confuses many people). As long as these problems are borne in mind, transitional fossils give a rough indication of what evolutionary changes were occurring. But don’t be misled into thinking that fossils are the only evidence for evolution. They’re not even the strongest evidence for evolution.” You are not doing very well thus far.
    As for your link, I got as far as the reference to SJ Gould saying ‘transitional fossils are lacking’ before I started laughing at the misquotation of the man. Here’s a nice little link to his actual statement and a pretty good run down of the science you’re denying. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html

    ““In response to convergent evolution vid (the accent guy vid): I’ll refer to that same link I posted earlier and quote something from it “Just to be clear, evolution theory puts no limit on what mutation/natural selection can invent, saying that everything in nature was invented by it – everything… Evolutionists often say ‘it evolved’, but no one lists all the molecular steps because no one knows what they could be.” I’ll admit this doesn’t disprove evolution.”
    Then there is no point in posting it. All you are doing is ‘Begging the Question’.

    “But showing a picture or video of how convergent evolution works certainly doesn’t prove it either. What would? A tried and true list of molecular steps would suffice, if only there were such a thing.
    Let’s ask these guys; https://www.smbe.org/smbe/ We’ll see what they say about that. Funnily enough I copy/pasted your question straight into google and the first hit was a blog post entitled Best evidence so far that humans are still evolving, scientists say. Link to check it out because it is a very interesting study. http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/03/best-evidence-so-far-that-humans-are-still-evolving-scientists-say/
    You know that we link you pictures and videos so you have a thing that you can see, right? The same reason we give children picture books, so that they can encounter concepts of things bigger than themselves and help grow an understanding of the world around them. That’s what we are trying to do. I’ll link another video to help me prove my point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpx7hsoYEt4 The ideas discussed required a demonstration, and one was provided. Had that been rendered in cold hard maths or expressed via chemical theory, we’d all have just said, err, what?

    “I noticed you want to play bingo. I wish you could see my surprised face (see I can be sarcastic too). I’m opting to give everyone a blackout so we can move past this ridiculous trend of this game on debate forums. I thought just the religious played it and I’m saddened to see atheists have succumb to it as well.”

    Please, we started this thing.

    “Allow me to chastise for a sec: It’s extremely unoriginal and petty.”
    You just said you wanted a blackout.

    I’m definitely not going to shy away from a good point (and I hope no one would on any other concept they disagreed with) because of a sport of snarkiness like debate bingo.”
    You’ve been shying away from all the good points so far.

    “I’m sure there’s more to atheists than behaving like snarks so I thought I’d get the game out of the way so we can move on to seeing that side. I know plenty of atheists that can do without being that way, so I’ll too give everyone here the benefit of the doubt.”

    In the free market place of ideas, only the strong survive. I’m snarky, because I heard this stuff before and I’m bored of repeating myself. At this stage, this is not a real debate for me, it’s just work.

    “1. My only concern is if it’s true or false and what evidence there is to support whichever side.”
    Get reading the links we provide then and stop googling creationist talking points.

    “3. This is an appeal to authority argument so it’s irrelevant whether this premise is true or false. I ONLY discuss it when someone erroneously says “all” scientists agree that evolution is a fact.”
    Quote from Wikipedia; ‘The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[19][20][21][22][23] One 1987 estimate found that “700 scientists … (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) … give credence to creation-science”.[24] A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.’

    If you are addressing the point then I hope that in future you link them that. Your original claim on Twitter was the support for evolution is crumbling. You still have yet to provide evidence for this.

    “5. However saying because someone forms an argument an evolutionist is tired of hearing doesn’t invalidate the value of the argument any more than me tiring of hearing certain things from atheists toward Christianity. It also doesn’t mean someone is uneducated on the topic just because they disagree.”

    Point of clarity; are you suggesting that the people using the argument ‘if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys’ are educated on evolution?

    “No organism on this earth today is omniscient enough to be justified in behaving so haughtily.”
    People are flawed but are only allowed to be flawed in a way you see as acceptable? This is off topic and redundant. To save time and energy, let’s just put this bit to bed.

    “6. But I believe evolution is as much of a “God of the gaps” as the Tri-une God I believe in.”
    You have said this before and it was pointless and refutable the last time you said it. Evolution. Is. Not. Guess. Work. Evolution is a testable and provable fact.

    “It has been “robustly confirmed countless” by “microevolutionary studies” and there’s no such thing as a “macroevolutionary study”.”

    The Discovery Institute would like it’s argument back. I’m tempted to suggest that you’re about to say that any evolution that cannot be observed is macro just like they do.
    So, I’ll put this to you; what would constitute a macroevolutionary transition?
    Let’s look at plants and animals. What distinguishes them? One big difference is the presence of an organelle – the chloroplast – in plant cells that is absent from animal cells. This sent animals and plants hurtling away from each other billions upon billions of years ago when they diverged. (To help me elaborate I’m going to be using PandaThumb’s explanation of the experiment, although chopped up a bit to aid with understanding.)
    Enter into the picture the long-running studies of Kwang W. Jeon (https://bcmb.utk.edu/people/emeritus/kwang-w-jeon/). More than 40 years ago, Jeon discovered of a strain of Amoeba, so-called xD amoeba (2) http://jcs.biologists.org/content/joces/117/4/535.full.pdf.
    This strain is different from its parent (the D strain) in that it possessed a bacteria-like endosymbiont (termed XB, related to Legionella species).
    xD amoeba are totally dependent on their endosymbiont (much like we are on the bacteria in our gut), as removal of the XB bacteria from the xD strain is lethal to the amoeba. xD amoeba possess a number of new proteins; one of these interferes with lysosomal recognition of the endosymbiont, one (a nuclear protein) inhibits growth of D amoeba, and one (coded for by the so-called s29x gene) is encoded by the XB genome and exported to the cytoplasm.
    Organelles such as the chloroplast and mitochondria arose by endosymbiotic events. What we see with xD amoeba are the early stages of another such event. The xD strain is dependent on the endosymbiont, much as plant cells depend on chloroplasts, and eukaryotic cells on mitochondria. Moreover, as is the case with more recognizable organelles, gene expression and cellular physiology in the xD strain have become interdependent, such that endosymbiont and nucleus communicate and control expression and metabolism. This system is arguably the beginnings of the evolution of a new organelle, something that would be tantamount to the origination of a new kingdom.
    By any reasonable measure, what Jeon and his coworkers have been studying is an example of macroevolution.

    “Such a belief can’t be studied, it can only be sought out to study, due to no evidence.”
    Citation needed.

    “7. Your anticipatory response to this was doesn’t debunk what I would’ve mentioned about it, but I have enough to work with to leave this argument alone.”
    Unless what you were going to say was ‘The Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with evolution and in no way effects it meaningfully’ then I’ll take that bet.

    “8. The issue is not that mutations can’t produce new features it’s that mutations can’t produce new information. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html”
    Armoured Skeptic, take it away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixoscmyNa0E

    “[Further Note: bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evolution. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572%5D”
    Migraine forming. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04
    Ok, lets deal with a quote from the article you linked. “Bacteria do not become resistant to antibiotics merely by experiencing genetic mutations. In fact, there are at least three genetic mechanisms by which resistance may be conferred. First, there are instances where mutations produce antibiotic-resistant strains of microorganisms (by any rational understanding of the term this is evolution). Second, there is the process of conjugation, during which two bacterial cells join and an exchange of genetic material occurs (the blending of DNA is a foundational requirement for evolution). Inside many bacteria there is a somewhat circular piece of self-replicating DNA known as a plasmid, which codes for enzymes necessary for the bacteria’s survival. Certain of these enzymes, coincidentally, assist in the breakdown of antibiotics, thus making the bacteria resistant to antibiotics (the bacteria with the greater number of these will continue to reproduce and the next generation will be best suited to combating the antibiotics; this is evolution you fucking knucklehead!). During conjugation, plasmids in one organism that are responsible for resistance to antibiotics may be transferred to an organism that previously did not possess such resistance (evo-fucking-lution).”

    “10. “There’s no Crocaduck!” Sigh… I could go through each famous fossil you named and then dig up (pun intended) some others and state how it’s possible they’re inaccurate assumptions too,”
    I will wait for you to do that and then laugh when your articles are debunked.

    “Archaeopteryx. Although it seems to be the first proven bird-appearing creature, there were other birds at the time http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/birdfr.html also there’s another possible bird-appearing discovery in the works http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/09/inconsistent_reasoning_governs038061.html It seems like evolutionists could be counting their chickens before they hatch (pun intended). Which wouldn’t surprise me.
    The fact that there are a shit load – and I really do mean shit load of feathered dinosaurs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaur – does not disprove anything I have said. In fact, it supports the idea of gradual evolution, with the splitting and branching of a species into others.

    Like

  9. Ok, Brit, here is a list of the words you got wrong.

    philosophy
    1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

    a particular system of philosophical thought.
    plural noun: philosophies
    “the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle”
    the study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience.
    “the philosophy of science”
    synonyms: thinking, reasoning, thought, wisdom, knowledge
    2.
    a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.
    “don’t expect anything and you won’t be disappointed, that’s my philosophy”
    synonyms: beliefs, credo, faith, convictions, ideology, ideas, thinking, notions, theories, doctrine, tenets, values, principles, ethics, attitude, line, view, viewpoint, outlook, world view, school of thought; Weltanschauung
    “I’d like to see your philosophy in action”

    You said; ‘The philosophies’ too rigid to be skeptical about itself. There’s nowhere to go.’ As evolution is not a philosophy (its a system of scientific study). The philosophy of science is the process of scientific inquiry. At best philosophies are used to better understand the human condition in a similar way to psychology (similar in that they think about what people do, not similar in that one gets results and the other doesn’t). You can no more have a philosophy of evolution than you can have a philosophy of Pythagoras theory.
    If you’re going by the faith route then you’ll want to refer back to the discussion we had before on what a faith is. At the end of the day I don’t believe in or have faith in evolution because I may as well have faith or believe in a chair – I don’t believe anything – I know it.

    naturalism
    1. (in art and literature) a style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail.
    “his attack on naturalism in TV drama”
    2. the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.
    “this romanticized attitude to the world did conflict with his avowed naturalism”
    3. (in moral philosophy) the theory that ethical statements can be derived from non-ethical ones.

    You said; ‘Evolution uses itself to prove itself. And that’s circular reasoning. A fallacy. B/c its strictly limited to naturalism all begins to look like evolution…’. I’m guessing that you’re referring to evolution as a philosophy. I think I’ve already disproved that.

    story/stories

    1.
    an account of imaginary or real people and events told for entertainment.
    “an adventure story”
    synonyms: tale, narrative, account, recital; More
    anecdote;
    chronicle, history;
    informalyarn, spiel
    “an adventure story”
    a plot or storyline.
    “the novel has a good story”
    synonyms: plot, storyline, scenario, chain of events; technicaldiegesis
    “the novel has a good story”
    a piece of gossip; a rumour.
    “there have been lots of stories going around, as you can imagine”
    synonyms: rumour, piece of gossip, piece of hearsay, whisper; More
    speculation;
    on dit;
    informalkidology;
    informalfurphy
    “there have been a lot of stories going round, as you can imagine”
    informal
    a false statement; a lie.
    “Ellie never told stories —she had always believed in the truth”
    synonyms: lie, fib, falsehood, untruth, fabrication, fiction, piece of fiction; More
    white lie;
    pishogue;
    nancy story;
    informaltall story, fairy story, fairy tale, cock and bull story, shaggy-dog story, whopper, terminological inexactitude, fish story;
    informalpork pie, porky pie, porky
    “Ellie never told stories—she had always believed in the truth”
    antonyms: the truth
    2.
    a report of an item of news in a newspaper, magazine, or broadcast.
    “stories in the local papers”
    synonyms: news item, news report, article, feature, piece; More
    exclusive, exposé;
    spoiler;
    informalscoop
    “the story appeared in the papers in the usual tabloid style”
    3.
    an account of past events in someone’s life or in the development of something.
    “the story of modern farming”
    a particular person’s representation of the facts of a matter.
    “during police interviews, Harper changed his story”
    synonyms: testimony, statement, report, account, version, description, representation
    “Harper changed his story about how the fire started”
    a situation viewed in terms of the information known about it or its similarity to another.
    “having such information is useful, but it is not the whole story”
    informal
    the facts about the present situation.
    noun: the story
    “What’s the story on this man? Is he from around here?”
    4.
    the commercial prospects or circumstances of a particular company.
    “the investors’ flight to profitable businesses with solid stories”

    You said; ‘Evolution is a bunch of “just-so” stories over and over and over…’. I’m guessing that you’re using story in the first instance. Well, as we have already stated, evolution has evidence for its existence. It is testable and provable. Lets see your bible stand up to testing.

    nothing
    1.
    not anything; no single thing.
    “I said nothing”
    synonyms: not a thing, not a single thing, not anything, nothing at all, nil, zero; More
    nowt;
    informalzilch, sweet Fanny Adams, sweet FA, nix, not a dicky bird;
    informaldamn all, not a sausage;
    informalzip, nada, a goose egg, bupkis;
    vulgar slangbugger all, sod all, fuck all;
    archaicnought, naught
    “there’s nothing I can do about it”
    antonyms: something
    something of no importance or concern.
    “‘What are you laughing at?’ ‘Oh, nothing, sir’”
    synonyms: a matter of no importance/consequence, a trifling matter, a trifle, a piece of trivia, a (mere) bagatelle; More
    neither here nor there;
    informalno big deal
    “please forget it, it’s nothing”
    a person of no importance, an unimportant person, a person of no account, a nobody, a nonentity, a cipher, a non-person;
    a lightweight;
    small beer
    “he seemed to treat her as nothing”
    antonyms: celebrity
    (in calculations) no amount; nought.
    synonyms: zero, nought, 0; More
    love;
    a duck
    “the value of the shares is unlikely to fall to nothing”

    adjective informal
    adjective: nothing

    1.
    having no prospect of progress; of no value.
    “he had a series of nothing jobs”

    adverb
    adverb: nothing

    1.
    not at all.
    “a man who cared nothing for her”
    North Americaninformal
    used to contradict something emphatically.

    You said; ‘Claiming that nothing can be something over & over is…’. You’re actually using nothing here as a stand in for ‘the proto state before life’. ‘Nothing just blows up into something’ is another iteration of this which can be refuted by simply understanding what is actually being studied.

    I was under the impression that it was you that used logic incorrectly in the tweet discussion, but i see now that it was Manny.

    Like

  10. I have a half finished paper at this point and haven’t even read every link sent in Twitter and above on this forum yet, smh. It’s a lot and I get the jest of it, but I want to cover all bases and not leave anything out. I set a deadline for myself to post something by today but unfortunately wasn’t able to do so as my 3 kids, my homework, my sex life, my husband, my housework, laundry, my job, my graduate courses, my church programs, my Mary Kay side hustle, and other events this week (kid bday parties, a black history event, etc) were first priorities (and I probably spent too much time continuing to talk to randoms on Twitter too lol). My husband’s started to become concerned with my sudden hyper involvement over this topic, and I’ve tried to explain to him I committed to some people to explain my position, so I must keep up my side of the agreement. Needless to say, he didn’t care nor understood, so I’m going to try to figure out how to watch everything and reply without ignoring him all week with my free time to do so.

    I won’t set anymore deadlines for myself as that’s too ambitious for my schedule It’s 1:13am right now and I must get up at 5:30am to get ready for work. I keep dozing off at this computer just typing this update on my status lol

    Like

  11. ****TWITTER REPONSE:**** (and I apologize ahead of time for typos. I hardly proofread)***

    This post is to serve to answer why I disbelieve in evolution. I want to apologize for the length ahead of time. I am not talented with brevity. Let me define some terms first before I begin:

    Theory: An explanation of phenomena. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
    Because calling something a theory is a highly sensitive label to call something an atheist believes with great certainty, I will elaborate further on what I mean when I say “theory”. When I say “theory” I am NOT stating the theory is “uncertain” simply because it’s a theory. I’m also NOT stating something is certain because it is a theory. Some explanations of phenomena are accurate, some are not. Calling evolution a theory does NOT make it uncertain, and neither does it make it certain. The title “theory” merely means explanation (an explanation that may not OR may indeed be true)

    Belief: Accepting something/someone as true. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief (Disbelief [the opposite]: Not accepting something/someone as true)

    Difference between opinion and belief: Opinion is a matter of taste; Belief/Disbelief is based on facts. So you’re belief/disbelief is either right or wrong (you either got your facts right, or you got your facts wrong). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

    Evolution: Theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution

    Species: Class of similar plants and animals that can reproduce. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/species

    “Kind”: Group of people or things that have some shared quality. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind (Hebrew word “min”; Pre-Linnaean term so not used to classify animals historically in the same way “species” does)

    History of classification of living things: http://utahscience.oremjr.alpine.k12.ut.us/sciber00/7th/classify/sciber/history.htm

    Biological evolution: Speciation http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Biological+evolution

    Chemical evolution: Explains the origin of life from inorganic to organic (Abiogenesis concept) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chemical-evolution

    Cosmic evolution: Study of change, from big bang to humankind http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/chaisson.cfm

    Speciation: Lineage splitting event that produces two or more species. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_42

    Adaptation: Modifications of an organism to fit changes in their environment. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/adaptation

    Natural Selection: Process of saving traits that would ensure an organisms survival in certain environmental pressures. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural-selection?s=t

    Transitional Forms (transitional fossils, transitional species, etc): Fossils or organisms that show the intermediate states between an ancestral form and that of its descendants. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_03

    “Missing Links”: A hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missing-link [Note: “Missing links” are now called “Transitional Forms” so they don’t sound as missing. “Missing link” is now a “no-no” word (a bad word) for evolutionists.]
    Macroevolution and microevolution (termed by Russian entomologist Yuri Filipchenko in 1927): Big changes over a lot of time and small changes over a short time: http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v4i7e1.htm#footnote1

    So I’m going to begin anew. Not because I disagree with anything I previously stated. Let me be clear, I don’t. Again, I do NOT disagree with anything I’ve previously stated. Not at all in the least. I’m beginning anew for the purpose of being more clear, concise, and organized. I’ve read the twitter comments, and SheepDip’s above posts, and I’ve consolidated my response for why I STILL believe evolution to be a false explanation of how things came to be what they are. Actually I now, more than I ever had before, believe evolution is false. Looking into it further has only further confirmed the disbelief I’ve had for a recent while.

    The reasons I believe evolution is false is because I believe evolution hasn’t proven any of its assumptions. And when I say evolution, I mean ANY word with evolution in it: Evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution, cosmic evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, and any other “-evolution”. I believe all of them are falsehoods. Evolution has assumptions. All theories have assumptions (and I know the word “theory” is a sensitive/touchy subject for atheists; all I mean by “theory” is defined above). So evolution is NOT exempt from developing from assumptions too. And none of its assumptions have been proven. Here are the assumptions evolution makes:

    ALL organisms are related through “common ancestry”.

    ALL organisms arose through the process of mutation & natural selection.

    ALL organisms arose and persist because of the random chance processes of nature and millions of years.

    Evolution demands millions of years (basically evolution requires lots and lots of time)!

    Consolidated citations: http://facstaff.cbu.edu/~seisen/Darwin.htm ; http://www.wayhome.org/TheAssumptionsOfEvolution.html ; http://www.science4all.org/article/darwins-theory-of-evolution/ ; http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm

    I will address my claim on evolution’s falseness by shedding light on the flaws of the assumptions evolution stands on. Many people on twitter shared http://www.talkorigins.com and so I’ll use this popular skeptic “go-to” sparingly to demonstrate how the defense for evolution does not work. Furthermore I would like to state that I will attempt to stay on topic. I’m only going to stay on topic about why evolution is not a fact. Because I’m NOT discussing God (nor creationism) on here, if you want to know why I believe in God, tweet me (@briblack89) and I’ll tell you as long as you’re polite and I’m not bombarded with too many tweets to respond to all of them. I’ll give you the summarized version, lol. Okay so on to why I believe evolution is not a “fact”…

    Assumption 1: ALL ORGANISMS ARE RELATED THROUGH “COMMON ANCESTRY”.

    This has not been proven.

    I’m unsure if this tree is still in science textbooks, so I won’t state whether it is or not, because I don’t know. However it was not too long ago. It is a tree (the phylogenetic tree of life) that is supposed to depict evolution and demonstrate how ALL living things are interrelated (not just symbiotically related, but LITERALLY related). The tree has many sorts of organisms on it with lines drawn connecting them all. But there’s nothing on the lines. The items that would go on the lines are the missing links (missing links defined already), a.k.a. transitional forms (also previously defined).

    To make the assumption that all organisms are related through common ancestry, we would need to find a decent and respectable amount of transitional forms that would demonstrate that to be true. However when reading articles, blogs, and papers, defending transitional forms as a “fact” it is interesting how the evidence in the intermediate stages is completely missing.

    Example: Let’s discuss the evolution of the human species.

    The drawings we see are called “art”. That’s it. Drawings. Nothing real. Fossils cannot show us how much hair something had, or what shaped lip the organism had, etc. That’s all guesswork. So let’s ignore the pictures because that’s not science, that’s art, and let’s instead look at the “fossil record”.

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html
    “The word “hominid” in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.” In other words “hominid” the classification where dead people’s bones are put. The “last common ancestor” is stated as classic evolution language, but not proven as of yet.

    “Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids.” That people are “included” in the “superfamily of all apes” is an assumption not proven as of yet.
    “Although the hominid fossil record is far from complete, and the evidence is often fragmentary, there is enough to give a good outline of the evolutionary history of humans.” “Far from complete” might as well say “not existent” and “fragmentary” might as well say “inferred” because the “outline of the evolutionary history of humans” is not existent in evidence and inferred in outline depiction. Here’s the “far from complete” and “fragmented” timeline: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

    Very unimpressive. The scarcity in the middle is blatant and obvious. There are labels waiting for evidences to claim them, but for now they remain inferences. Where are those intermediate fossils? If there’s been “millions of years” as the chart shows, why is there not at least one confirmed “transitional form” under each pre-labeled classification? We’ve been digging for over 150 years. I’m over the excuses. It’s time to fess up now.

    As far as the “transitional forms” that have been placed in the middle of the timeline, they’re not yet concluded to be in proper placement. For example: “Homo Habilis” is still being studying and researchers do not even agree if it is even a valid species, what fossils belong in the group, and what traits to put in that group. “Homo habilis is a very complicated species to describe. No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus. Hopefully, future discoveries and future cladistic analyses of the specimens involved may clear up these issues, or at least better define what belongs in the species.” http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/

    Then there’s an embarrassing shameful list of fraudulent “transitional forms” that even the secular world has convicted as fraudulent (Like the “Piltdown Man” http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html). There have been other fraudulent diagrams, depictions, and data used for evolution “evidence” also. I won’t go into them all, but I’ll state one I haven’t yet mentioned on twitter: Ernst Haeckel, charged with fraud at the University of Jena for his misleading depiction of the embryo in utero: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html. But if evolution is a “fact” why would anyone need to go through lengths to create pseudoscientific fraudulent evidences? The desperation would be unnecessary for a “fact”.

    So without going into exhaustive detail over every transitional form that has ever been claimed to exist, the reasons I stated above in my example of the “superfamily” of apes/humans transitional forms are why I state the assumption that all organisms have a common ancestor has not yet been proven. Top heavy, and bottom heavy, and either missing middle or non-confirmed/non-consensus/non-proven intermediate. We have NOT factually concluded that we are definitely related to apes other than inferring that we could be, coming up with labels, and investigating that inference and those labels.

    Assumption 2: ALL ORGANISMS AROSE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MUTATION & NATURAL SELECTION.

    I think natural selection (defined above already) is pretty cool too. I really do. But I don’t give it as much credit that evolutionists give it. I agree that natural selection can work like this: Cause changes through mutations or variations in a population of organisms; those different organisms then compete to survive and reproduce; those best able to survive and reproduce do so, and tend to leave the most offspring (this is natural selection at work). Where I disagree is with the next part that over time if some organisms survive and reproduce more than others, a species will “evolve”. When asked “what would be the mechanism to stop it from happening?” My response is simply that natural selection does not have the processing power to ADD any new information to the genome. If it does, it’s never been seen in nature. Even on a small scale. Many argue selective breeding of dogs is evidence of evolution. But “selective” breeding is not “natural” selection. Furthermore this whole notion of natural selection producing a new species over time due to survival of the fittest needs some more explanation. What would a “beneficial change” for a new species be? For example: If it was possible for natural selection to provide a mutation for a wolf gradually into a poodle (which I doubt) how would that poodle be better benefited for its environment than the wolf? (I often wonder how humans are at a greater benefit than apes too. We’re weaker, slower, hands more primitive, etc. Apes could survive in our environment, they’d tear stuff up, lol, but survive still, but we would definitely not survive in theirs).

    Also before assuming natural selection has the power to be the mechanism that can mimic the powers of intelligence, it would need to demonstrate that it can on all levels, including the origin of life. If it has not yet been proven that natural selection can be a mechanism that can mutate inorganic to organic how can we then assert as fact that it can create new information, which would be necessary for new “kinds” (defined above already) to evolve.

    What natural selection and mutation can do is help species survive through changes in their environment. Finches may mutate into different variations of finches; minnows may mutate into different variations of minnows; salamanders may mutate into different variations of salamanders, but throughout time, natural selection and mutation, the mutated finches, minnows, and salamanders have been (and I believe will still be) finches, minnows, and salamanders. In organisms new and old there’s no change to the basic genome (the DNA structure). There’s no new (not duplicated, and not reduced, but completely NEW) genetic material in any species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
    “Epigenetic changes modify the activation of certain genes, but not the genetic code sequence of DNA. The microstructure (not code) of DNA itself or the associated chromatin proteins may be modified, causing activation or silencing. This mechanism enables differentiated cells in a multicellular organism to express only the genes that are necessary for their own activity. Epigenetic changes are preserved when cells divide. Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism’s lifetime; however, if gene inactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes can be transferred to the next generation.[26] This raises the question of whether or not epigenetic changes in an organism can alter the basic structure of its DNA [which evolution would require to be possible] a form of Lamarckism.”

    Also natural selection cannot resolve the problem evolution has with irreducible complexity nor symbiotic relationships. Some organisms have to have all of their parts (like a giraffe or a camel for instance). And some organisms have to have other organisms in existence to exist in the first place (like bees and flowers). And not only that, but some symbiotic relationships have certain imperative timing for the survival of their kinds. For example: the wasp and orchid must interact within 2 weeks or the orchid won’t reproduce and eventually the wasp would die out too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drakaea . I understand that scientists are still “working these problems out” but before natural selection is claimed to have the power to have transitioned all organisms to their current state, irreducible complexity and symbiosis issues have to be worked out. If they are left unanswered that’s fine, I’m not asking for a “god of the gaps” but that means we should not assert natural selection can play the part in evolution that we don’t know for certain it can yet.

    So natural selection and mutation have not been proven to have the possibility to be able to transition species. Therefore because there is no proof in nature currently or to date, assumption #2 cannot be considered a “fact”, at least not until some issues are sorted through.

    Okay so I’ve been lengthy so far so I’ll try to be brief with these last 2 assumptions.

    Assumption 3: ALL ORGANISMS AROSE & PERSIST BECAUSE OF RANDOM CHANCE PROCESSES OF NATURE AND MILLIONS OF YEARS.

    Abiogenesis needs to be proven here. Until it is, this assumption cannot be stated as “fact”. And no, the Miller-Urey experiment did not prove life can be created from non-life. All they made was poison and without oxygen at that, but life cannot survive without oxygen. We cannot say how all organisms arose if we don’t even know how they arose. Again, I’m not asking for a “god of the gaps” here, I’m just saying we can’t state a something is a fact until it’s been proven to be one. And abiogenesis has not been proven therefore we don’t know how all organisms arose and persist. We haven’t even fully figured out how the DNA gets it’s information and how it knows to direct that information in the cells with it’s “machines”. Let’s not count our chickens before they hatch here.

    Assumption 4: EVOLUTION DEMANDS MILLIONS OF YEARS!

    Sigh… This is probably the most devastating assumption evolution makes. If the world is millions of years old: Where’s all the fossils for the populations of millions of years worth of dead people, dead animals? Where’s all the precious metals that should be in the sea? Where’s all the oil? Where’s all the structures (like pyramids, towers, great walls, etc) that were created? Why would people just start making stuff a few thousand years ago? We’re missing millions of years of evidence if the world has been around millions of years.

    Then on the flipside, evolution doesn’t have ENOUGH time to explain the stars, and the expanse, and the galaxies.

    Here’s a list of other time issues: https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/yeclaimsbeta.html (While reading understand this post is NOT about proving creation, but about disproving evolution is a “fact”. My point is if we do not know for a “fact” how old the world is, then we need to stop stating “millions of years” matter-of-factly)

    Time is not on the side of evolution. It’s either too long or too short for the evidence available. So it has not been proven that the world is definitely millions of years old.

    Other things that work against evolution being a “fact”:

    Dating techniques are NOT certain: http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating1.html

    Why does the history of language show language go from complex to simple? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language

    The Cambrian Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

    How did “primitive” humans make the pyramids?

    Non-evolved animals: Turtles, Coelacanths, the goblin shark etc. http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150413-can-an-animal-stop-evolving
    The excuse here is that these are “living fossils”. *Blank stare* I’m not even going to get into the ridiculousness of the denial of this issue.

    Out-dated evolutionary thought still argued today as defenses for evolution: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/contradictions_irony_and_appea046961.html

    Things that don’t show evolution as a “fact”:

    Bacteria resistance to antibiotics http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572 (and I already know skeptics hate Christian sites. Just like Christians hate Atheist sites. Oh well. Too bad, so sad. Set aside the deep hatred for anything that comes from someone who doesn’t share your disbelief and read the argument)

    Archaeopteryx might not be the transitional form between reptile and bird evolutionists hoped for (if it’s not a fact yet, we shouldn’t claim it to be yet. That’s counting chickens before they hatch): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/an-ode-to-archaeopteryx-63181085/
    Further controversy: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/27/oldest-bird-archaeopteryx-study

    I have more I can say but this is a longer response than I intended already. Even if you’re still convinced evolution is a “fact” (even though it’s not as it’s assumptions aren’t even “facts”), that’s fine. Just understand that if someone understands evolution is not a fact, it might not be because they’re “intellectually dishonest”, uninformed, ignorant, or “scared to believe there’s no God”. It could be just that they don’t find the “evidence” for evolution as compelling as you do. Scientists have been wrong about their “facts” and scientific inferences (hunches) before (See list of superceded sciences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories ), and they can be about this again. So to go around galavanting that “evolution is a fact” when we haven’t proven it to be a 100% airtight non-disputed certainty, is wrong. No need to take things as personal as people have gotten with me. Yet I remain in a position of not getting aggressive with anyone. Between atheists and theists it’s the same old tired fight. Theists call atheists intellectually dishonest for denying intelligent design and atheists call theists intellectually dishonest for believing in an intelligent designer that can’t be tested. Atheists say theists are too afraid to believe that there’s no God. And theists say atheists are too afraid to believe there is God, hell, and judgment. I know you think you’re different, and you have a better reason to claim why the other group is completely unreasonable, but the same argument is being made with as much zeal on the other side, trust me. It’s the same silly argument on both ends. Idk why either side believes they’re argument is more necessary and original than the other’s. I’m in neither boat of pointing hostile hateful and hurtful fingers. I don’t call names, holler intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, etc based on someone not agreeing with me. I know it’s not a matter of opinion. One side is DEFINITELY right. But regardless who that is, all of the hostility is 100% unnecessary so this is why I haven’t participated in its reciprocation.

    As far as evolution… I understand evolution as a pseudoscience of inference, imagination, wishful thinking, an alternative explanation to creation that does not work, and linking non-related things together based on similarities that can be explained by other means. The assumptions are all unproven, so I’m quite tired of people stating evolution is a fact. You can hold to it as a stong contending explanation (although I’d still disagree), but you definitely cannot hold it as a “fact”. That’s all. No need for emotional investment in the debate though. It is what it is, and it ain’t what it ain’t.

    Some other interesting links I didn’t fit into my argument, but have some interesting information:

    Thoughts from an ex-evolutionist: http://evillusion.blogspot.com/

    100 things evolutionists might dislike:
    http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html

    Plenty evolutionists that became scientists (this is an “Appeal to Authority” argument, and so I’m NOT using it as proof. Just putting it here because someone was interested in looking into ex-evolutionists. AGAIN, this is NOT disproof. This is simply answering a request. If you tell me I’m trying to use “appeal to authority” I will slap you. Actually I won’t. But I’ll want to.)
    http://www.creationists.org/former-evoltionists-who-became-young-earth-creation-scientists.html

    I can go on and on, but I can’t state every reason ever to disbelieve in evolution. So I’ll just arbitrarily pick a stopping point. Peace to everyone! I’m out.

    Like

  12. “I’m also NOT stating something is certain because it is a theory.” Then you do not know what a theory is in a scientific context. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm “Calling evolution a theory does NOT make it uncertain, and neither does it make it certain.” Did you read any of the evidence posted above? I’m guessing not as you still do not understand what a theory is. “Difference between opinion and belief: Opinion is a matter of taste; Belief/Disbelief is based on facts. So you’re belief/disbelief is either right or wrong (you either got your facts right, or you got your facts wrong). http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief” Well done. Is Bigfoot real? “Evolution: Theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evolution” The theory of evolution describes the change in allele frequencies in organisms. Evolution is the observable and testable process of these changes. ““Kind”: Group of people or things that have some shared quality. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/kind (Hebrew word “min”; Pre-Linnaean term so not used to classify animals historically in the same way “species” does)” Neat – can I change kinds if I suddenly stop enjoying video games? After all I no longer have the shared quality of liking video games with my fellow gamers. I have changed kind by that definition. ““Missing Links”: A hypothetical fossil form intermediate between two living forms http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/missing-link [Note: “Missing links” are now called “Transitional Forms” so they don’t sound as missing. “Missing link” is now a “no-no” word (a bad word) for evolutionists.]” Conspiracy theorist says what? Missing link has never been anything more than a tabloid buzzword. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Misunderstandings “http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v4i7e1.htm#footnote1” Oh boy, what a gold mine that place is. I really enjoyed the ‘Undead’ and ‘Pollination; friend or foe’ articles. In all seriousness – if you want to be taken seriously, don’t use this website for anything other than showing people the negative effects of homeschooling. “I’ve read the twitter comments, and SheepDip’s above posts… the reason I believe evolution is false is because I believe evolution hasn’t proven any of its assumptions…” You clearly didn’t read any of the links or even watch the videos. I have linked you proof that evolution has tested and proved itself. Why is it so hard for you to read things that don’t agree with you? I go through each of your links and refute them. The least you could do is try. “And when I say evolution, I mean ANY word with evolution in it: Evolution, chemical evolution, biological evolution, cosmic evolution, macroevolution, microevolution, and any other “-evolution”. I believe all of them are falsehoods.” What about the evolution of language? Did a Latin speaking mother give birth to a Spanish/Italian speaking child? Did the Dutch, French and Germans not massively influence the native language of Britain and by extension all of the English Speaking world? Are the Japanese not implementing ‘romanaji’ – western loan words in their language for western constructs (Taxi, Ice cream, etc)? I think you merely want to reject that which you purposely do not understand. “So evolution is NOT exempt from developing from assumptions too. And none of its assumptions have been proven. Here are the assumptions evolution makes: 1 ALL organisms are related through “common ancestry”. 2 ALL organisms arose through the process of mutation & natural selection. 3 ALL organisms arose and persist because of the random chance processes of nature and millions of years. 4 Evolution demands millions of years (basically evolution requires lots and lots of time)!” 1 – No proof you say? Damn, you really don’t read too good do you? Not only do you have all the stuff up above but let’s toss out some now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ 2 – http://necsi.edu/projects/evolution/evidence/evidence_intro.html http://www.livescience.com/474-controversy-evolution-works.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution.html http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/different-patterns-of-evolution.html 3 – Headdesk! Why oh why do so many creationists think that evolution is predated on random chance. Did Ken Ham teach science at your school?! It’s like Lysenkoism came back into fashion. FUN FACT; Lysenko’s intuitions about chance in biology were so successful that 20 million people starved to death as a result of his false science applied to agriculture. Evolution is not based on chance and random mutations. Evolution is based off of intensely conservative systems called ‘living beings’ which are, often, microscopic, fortuitous, and totally unrelated to whatever may be their effects upon teleonomic functioning. Any change in the body of chemistry of a creature will be passed on – assuming that the individual is able to breed. The concept of genetic changes being accidental and unique is fundamentally flawed, for all that it reappears in a number of influential works on evolution. Causes of genetic change are being uncovered routinely, and they involve better or worse understood mechanisms that are very far from random, in the sense that there are very clear causes for the changes, and that they can be specified in detail over general cases. The use of the phrase “realm of pure chance” is rhetoric and is misleading at best, simply false at worst. To make this clear, we need to see the general pattern of evolution. Darwin called his principle natural selection. It has been understood to mean that the natural world is an agent, selecting according to some goal; that nature aims to perfect or complete the potential of a species. THIS IS HORSESHIT. Natural selection in modern science is a feedback process. It requires two “forces”, as it were, one acting to faithfully (but not quite perfectly) replicate the structure of the organism (reproduction and ontogeny) and the other sorting the interactive characteristics of organisms with the environment (the phenotype or set of traits) into those more or less efficient at survival and therefore at reproduction opportunities. A better term for it, therefore, is “environmental sorting of heredity”, since it is the way in which certain traits equip organisms that increases or decreases their chances at being passed on, relative to other traits in that population of organisms. Imagine a child’s toy that has numbers of three different size balls in a container, with two internal layers that have increasingly smaller holes in them. Shaking the toy (a randomising process) increases the likelihood that the smaller balls will pass through the first filter, and that the smallest balls through the second. The smallest balls are, in effect, the most “fit” (or make the best fit) and make it through to the bottom. There has been a selection, or sorting, process which results in the smallest balls making it to the bottom. The feedback loop in evolution results when the genetic structure causes the phenotypic traits to develop (as opposed to when there is no covariance between gross organismic traits and its genotype, eg, acquired characteristics). Traits that are more efficient than the alternatives available in the reproductive population (called a deme) have an increased likelihood of reproducing. In any small deme, there is a finite probability of any two organisms mating, and so the genetic makeup of the deme as a whole can lose and spread genes differently to the ‘parent’ population. In this way, also, the isolated population can differ, and speciation occur. This is known as ‘genetic drift’ and is a distinct process to natural selection. Several important conclusions fall out from this way of modelling change. For a start, the term “species” becomes more fuzzy. There are no hard and fast boundaries between a parent species and its child species; at least, not at first. There is a clear boundary between a cat and a dog. There is a fuzzy boundary between a horse and a donkey, which can breed (but their progeny, the mule, is not fertile). Other species, such as zebras and horses, or lions and tigers, can interbreed and their progeny are sometimes fertile. “Species” becomes partly a taxonomic term of convenience rather than a metaphysical kind or class. Incipient species can be termed “varieties” or “subspecies” or even “races”, and biologists nowadays tend to award species rank only when interbreeding is either behaviourally or genetically difficult. Many species of bird are distinct primarily in their mating behaviour, even though they are interfertile, as is the case with lions and tigers. The fact that they do not interbreed marks them as distinct species (this is called the Biological Species Concept). Another conclusion to be drawn is that there is no set goal to selection. Variants arise naturally in all populations. Each population has its traits spread out over a distribution curve. While quadrupeds generally do not give birth to viable three legged individuals, legs can be longer or shorter, and whichever trait confers advantage at the time is the one which will be more widely reproduced. Given that resources are limited (or scarce, in Darwin’s terminology) if for example longer legs give an advantage in survival over shorter legs, then the mean length of legs in that population will increase, and eventually take over (“go to fixation”) in the absence of any other changes of environment. This does not happen because longer legs are in any eternal way more “perfect”, but rather because they are more adequate for the tasks at hand of simply making a living long enough to reproduce. “Survival of the fittest” should be rephrased as “survival of the more adequate”. “Consolidated citations: http://facstaff.cbu.edu/~seisen/Darwin.htm ;http://www.wayhome.org/TheAssumptionsOfEvolution.html ;http://www.science4all.org/article/darwins-theory-of-evolution/ ;http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm” My challenge is for you to find me one scientists who says that evolution = abiogenes. Oh, oh, you wanna talk more about assumptions? Let’s go! 1 The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation#Scientific_method 2 citation needed. Abiogenesis is something that scientists have no firm handle on and all admit it. Abiogenesis is not evolution. 3 Common ancestor Bri, not interrelated. In the same way that you and I have a common ancestor – probably Charlemagne as that guy got around like a rash. 4 well done, that one appears to be correct. Have a cookie. 5 oh, oh, oh, good show, that one’s true, you’re in the final stretch. 6 all the data seems to suggest this and there is a lot of evidence in the DNA of various animals that corroborates this. 7 we don’t have ALL the data on that currently, but it is a reasonable prognostication. There’s several incidences of convergent evolution and a real blurring of the lines between the definition of fish and amphibian very early on in their development. ‘Assumption 1: ALL ORGANISMS ARE RELATED THROUGH “COMMON ANCESTRY”. This has not been proven.’ Yes it has, I did this earlier. ‘…It is a tree (the phylogenetic tree of life) that is supposed to depict evolution and demonstrate how ALL living things are interrelated (not just symbiotically related, but LITERALLY related).’ I think you may have meant something other than symbiotically. “To make the assumption that all organisms are related through common ancestry, we would need to find a decent and respectable amount of transitional forms that would demonstrate that to be true. However when reading articles, blogs, and papers, defending transitional forms as a “fact” it is interesting how the evidence in the intermediate stages is completely missing.” Ok, Bri, I’m trying not to be insulting here. I’m really trying. But you are either blind, illiterate or brain damaged. We have given you plenty of examples. We have given you papers, blog posts and museum research results. You haven’t read them, or if you have, you’ve said ‘ok, but what about the other gaps, you need to provide links to these other intermediary species.’ There are *many* transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine “transitional” as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out. Take human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them. ‘The drawings we see are called “art”. That’s it. Drawings. Nothing real. Fossils cannot show us how much hair something had, or what shaped lip the organism had, etc. That’s all guesswork. So let’s ignore the pictures because that’s not science, that’s art, and let’s instead look at the “fossil record”.’ We update the artists renderings of scientific guesswork all the time – look at spinosaurus. When we discovered that it had none traditional therapod legs the art work was changed to better reflect our new understanding. http://naturalhistory.si.edu/exhibits/backyard-dinosaurs/reconstructing-animals.cfm this is a nice little article that goes into the process in more detail. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html ‘“The word “hominid” in this website refers to members of the family of humans, Hominidae, which consists of all species on our side of the last common ancestor of humans and living apes.” In other words “hominid” the classification where dead people’s bones are put.’ I really don’t know what it is you are trying to say. We are hominids regardless of where our bones are put. I suggest you go back and read the article again. ‘The “last common ancestor” is stated as classic evolution language, but not proven as of yet.’ Again, I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. We don’t know what our most recent common ancestor was? Sure we don’t know, yet. Are you trying to say that the whole of evolution hinges on this one issue? Nope. “Hominids are included in the superfamily of all apes, the Hominoidea, the members of which are called hominoids.” That people are “included” in the “superfamily of all apes” is an assumption not proven as of yet.’ Ok, this is just getting painful. Bri, do you understand that we, humans, are a species of primate and thus are part of the superorder of Hominoidea? This is our taxonomical designation. Think of it like an area code for your phone; we are part of the Greater Ape area code. Do I need to pull out more evidence that we are related to apes? This is something even the church agrees on. http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/how-do-we-know-humans-are-primates-0 http://www.pewforum.org/2009/02/04/religious-groups-views-on-evolution/ ‘“Far from complete” might as well say “not existent” and “fragmentary” might as well say “inferred” because the “outline of the evolutionary history of humans” is not existent in evidence and inferred in outline depiction. Here’s the “far from complete” and “fragmented” timeline: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline’ But it doesn’t. We’re strange like that – we use words that are appropriate to the situation and best describe the evidence as it is available. Bri, you’re doing it again – you’re ignoring what has been said before and attempting to label others as liars just to keep your science denialism going. ‘Very unimpressive. The scarcity in the middle is blatant and obvious. There are labels waiting for evidences to claim them, but for now they remain inferences.’ No… just no they don’t. You don’t know how to read data; it’s a branching outwards with the top line representing modern day and the truncated stuff in the middle representing the things which came before. Including other branching species wouldn’t be any use here as they didn’t contribute to human evolution – the markers for the orang-utan aren’t on there, for example, because it didn’t contribute anything to human evolution. ‘Where are those intermediate fossils? If there’s been “millions of years” as the chart shows, why is there not at least one confirmed “transitional form” under each pre-labeled classification? We’ve been digging for over 150 years. I’m over the excuses. It’s time to fess up now.’ Wow, Duane Gish would like his argument back. Lots to unpick here. You’re making me do work when I should be writing. My only consolation is that I am learning and drinking Irish Tea. Studies of modern populations and species show that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area (remember the example of the swamp cow). The population genetics of small populations allow this new species to evolve relatively quickly (inbreeding worked for Cleopatra after all). Its evolution may allow it to spread into new geographical areas once again. Since the actual transitions occur relatively quickly and in a relatively small area, the transitions do not often show up in the fossil record. Sudden appearance in the fossil record often simply reflects that an existing species moved into a new region. You do realise how rare a fossil is right? It’s the equivalent to you winning the lottery whilst doing a backflip. It’s not like every animal on the planet buried its dead like we do now. Most of the time shit got eaten and crapped back out as tiny little bits that rotted into obscurity. Fossilization isn’t particularly common. It requires very particular conditions that are only common to a few habitats like river deltas, peat bogs and tar pits. Unless you live near one you’re likelyhood of getting fossilized is pretty low. As climates change, species will move, so we cannot expect a transition to occur all at one spot. Fossils often must be collected from all over a continent to find the transitions. Added to this most animals do not preserve well, not to mention what happens to bodies in places with a high Ph to the soil. Hell, anything in a tropical forest is fucked, not to mention, probably underwater by now or in the control of a Congolise militia. You ever tried digging a hole with a bunch of machete and AK wielding ‘freedom fighters’ shouting at you? I’d say this is an exaggeration but not by much; we’ve only discovered about 10% of the world’s fossils at best – loads of them will be underwater or in places we just can’t get to. Only Europe and North America have been well explored because that’s where most of the paleontologists live and getting grant money together to go dig a hole in the congo is expensive and did I mention the AK’s already? Also, just how many palaeontologists do you think are working on these things? Yeah, there are hundreds all over the world, but how many sit down just to study human and ape fossils? Because the really cool stuff is a lot bigger than us and has more interesting moving parts. Preparing and analyzing the material for just one lineage can take a decade of work. There are likely hundreds of transitional fossils sitting in museum drawers, unknown because nobody knowledgeable has examined them. You know why? There’s no real money in palaeontology; it’s a fairly dry bunch of old guy getting excited about rock and bone, writing very dry papers about how one little bit here is different to one little bit there. Description of fossils is often limited to professional literature and does not get popularized – because its only interesting to those who find it interesting. This is especially true of marine microfossils, which is a shame, because some of the stuff we’ve discovered is amazing! Erosion will often destroy as many fossils as it exposes. One bad avalanche can destroy more fossils than a Nazi book purge, so of course there are going to be gaps in the geological record. Fossils can also be destroyed by heat or pressure when buried deep underground – that’s where all the lava is after all. As rare as fossils are, fossil discovery is rarer still. For the most part, we find only fossils that have been exposed by erosion, and only if the exposure is recent enough that the fossils themselves do not erode. Evolution is a relatively rapid process when compared to the geological processes that happen to influence it, so the transitions between species will be uncommon in the fossil record even when they are subject to the right conditions. Want an example of this? How many Dodo fossils are there? Passenger pigeons? Great Awks? Marsupial tigers? If they are hard to find, why should we expect to find fossils that are likely from smaller populations and have been subject to millions of years of potential erosion? You want answers, damnit, you want us to fess up to our conspiracy, dammit and then we can all go home for apple pie just like mother used to make? You’re getting your answers, if they are unpalatable to you it’s because you have the problem, not the answers themselves. ‘For example: “Homo Habilis” is still being studying and researchers do not even agree if it is even a valid species, what fossils belong in the group, and what traits to put in that group. “Homo habilis is a very complicated species to describe. No two researchers attribute all the same specimens as habilis, and few can agree on what traits define habilis, if it is a valid species at all, and even whether or not it belongs in the genus Homo or Australopithecus. Hopefully, future discoveries and future cladistic analyses of the specimens involved may clear up these issues, or at least better define what belongs in the species.” http://archaeologyinfo.com/homo-habilis/’ Lubenow would be proud. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgvgzaXTzTg http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/multiple-species-of-early-homo-lived-in-africa-16094973/ What you do not seem to understand is that when scientists say that habilis may consist of two or more species, they are not saying that habilis is an invalid species. The reason is that one of those species is Homo habilis. Habilis would be an invalid species if, and only if, its type specimen, OH 7, was determined to belong to a previously defined species. That has not happened and almost certainly will not happen, for the reason that OH 7 differs from all previously named species. Some scientists have argued that habiline fossils should be reassigned to the australopithecines, but they are not saying habilis is an invalid species, merely that it should be Australopithecus habilis, not Homo habilis. This is similar to the brontosaur/apatasaur/diplodicus tomfoolery that happened in the last few years. Anyone who reads scientific papers or articles on paleoanthropology will see that habilis is alive and well, and routinely referred to. I am not aware of any paleoanthropologists who consider habilis an invalid species. Or, more precisely, the fossils often assigned to habilis do not all belong to a single species. One of the top minds in the field, a chap called Spoor, said that the habilines are kind of intermediate between the australopithecines and Homo erectus. The question is simply figuring out which fossils represent the same species as the type specimen of H. habilis (a mandible from Olduvai, Tanzania). Over time, when more fossils will be found, we will get an increasingly good idea about morphological variation of this species, and what type of cranium exactly fits with the type mandible. Now, as of February 2003 a new skeleton was discovered, prompting the habilis line to be reconsidered, in other words they will be looked into which bits were the real habilis and which weren’t. Turns out there are two varieties of homo habilis. ‘Then there’s an embarrassing shameful list of fraudulent “transitional forms” that even the secular world has convicted as fraudulent (Like the “Piltdown Man”http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html).’ Wow, another from the Gishmaster again, huh? You’re just begging for me to add to the bingo list aren’t you? FUN FACT; I know the bloke who owns the old jewellery shop that Abbot worked out of. The Piltdown man was exposed by scientists. The fact that it took forty years is certainly no shining example of science in action, but it does show that science corrects errors. Preconceptions are an unavoidable problem in just about any investigation, but they are less so in science because first, different scientists often have different preconceptions, and the physical evidence must always be accounted for. Many scientists from America and Europe did not accept Piltdown Man uncritically, and the hoax unraveled when the fossils could not be reconciled with other hominid fossil finds. One hoax cannot indicate the inferiority of conventional archeology, because creationists have several of their own, including Paluxy footprints, the Calaveras skull, Moab and Malachite Man, and others. More telling is how people deal with these hoaxes. When Piltdown was exposed, it stopped being used as evidence. The creationist hoaxes, however, can still be found cited as if they were real. Piltdown has been over and done with for decades, but the dishonesty of creationist hoaxes continues. ‘There have been other fraudulent diagrams, depictions, and data used for evolution “evidence” also. I won’t go into them all, but I’ll state one I haven’t yet mentioned on twitter: Ernst Haeckel, charged with fraud at the University of Jena for his misleading depiction of the embryo in utero:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html. But if evolution is a “fact” why would anyone need to go through lengths to create pseudoscientific fraudulent evidences? The desperation would be unnecessary for a “fact”.’ I’m just checking here, but do know that talk origins isn’t using Haeckel as an example of evolution facts? PZ Meyers (the chap who wrote the article) set out the facts of what Haeckel did. Besides, Haeckel’s pictures are irrelevant to the question of whether the embryos are similar. What matters are the embryos themselves. Early stage embryos all show similarities; vertebrates develop a notochord (protospinalcord), body segments, gill pouches, and a tail. These indicate a common evolutionary history. Other embryological similarities are found in other lineages, such as mollusks and arthropods. These similarities have been long known. Oh, let’s just get a check; Haeckel being convicted of fraud. Citation please. I looked and all I can find are creationist sites that say he was convicted. To some anti-Darwinists every sort of vilifying argument seems welcome. To my knowledge no respectable historical source mentions this conviction of Haeckel. Seems about as much evidence for this as Darwin’s deathbed conversion. What did happen, that we sure know of, is that once Haeckel realised that there were inaccuracies he corrected them. Science tends to do that. ‘So without going into exhaustive detail over every transitional form that has ever been claimed to exist, the reasons I stated above in my example of the “superfamily” of apes/humans transitional forms are why I state the assumption that all organisms have a common ancestor has not yet been proven. Top heavy, and bottom heavy, and either missing middle or non-confirmed/non-consensus/non-proven intermediate. We have NOT factually concluded that we are definitely related to apes other than inferring that we could be, coming up with labels, and investigating that inference and those labels.’ Sigh. Once more into the breach. Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have enough data from diverse fields to give us the next best thing to certainty. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms with each new piece validating the rest. All life shows a unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism. Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life. Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits. Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record. The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation. Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characteristics, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight. Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism’s evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth. The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions. The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm. We’ve been telling you this for the last two weeks and you’ve been ignoring it. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-closely-related-are-h/ http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030050 http://biologos.org/common-questions/human-origins/what-scientific-evidence-do-we-have-about-the-first-humans ‘Assumption 2: ALL ORGANISMS AROSE THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MUTATION & NATURAL SELECTION. I think natural selection (defined above already) is pretty cool too. I really do. But I don’t give it as much credit that evolutionists give it. I agree that natural selection can work like this: Cause changes through mutations or variations in a population of organisms; those different organisms then compete to survive and reproduce; those best able to survive and reproduce do so, and tend to leave the most offspring (this is natural selection at work).’ And what happens when they encounter a species better adapted to the environment or are subject to a natural disaster or are forced to move from place to place and find themselves unable to settle in an environment that they are adapted to? ‘Where I disagree is with the next part that over time if some organisms survive and reproduce more than others, a species will “evolve”. When asked “what would be the mechanism to stop it from happening?” My response is simply that natural selection does not have the processing power to ADD any new information to the genome. If it does, it’s never been seen in nature. Even on a small scale. Many argue selective breeding of dogs is evidence of evolution. But “selective” breeding is not “natural” selection. Furthermore this whole notion of natural selection producing a new species over time due to survival of the fittest needs some more explanation. What would a “beneficial change” for a new species be? For example: If it was possible for natural selection to provide a mutation for a wolf gradually into a poodle (which I doubt) how would that poodle be better benefited for its environment than the wolf? (I often wonder how humans are at a greater benefit than apes too. We’re weaker, slower, hands more primitive, etc. Apes could survive in our environment, they’d tear stuff up, lol, but survive still, but we would definitely not survive in theirs).’ Oh and it’s a Gish hattrick! Variation of traits is production of new information – in the same way that 2+2 is a new number (4) and the same way that a bucket of lego has almost an infinite amount of possible forms. Want some more evidence? The ability of a bacterium to digest nylon; the adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment; the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose; the evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga! We’ve been through all this before, Bri. For evolution to operate, the source of variation doesn’t matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were. ‘Also before assuming natural selection has the power to be the mechanism that can mimic the powers of intelligence, it would need to demonstrate that it can on all levels, including the origin of life. If it has not yet been proven that natural selection can be a mechanism that can mutate inorganic to organic how can we then assert as fact that it can create new information, which would be necessary for new “kinds” (defined above already) to evolve.’ Why? The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology. Abiogenesis is a fact. Regardless of how you imagine it happened (note that creation is a theory of abiogenesis), it is a fact that there once was no life on earth and that now there is. Thus, even if evolution needs abiogenesis, it has it. ‘What natural selection and mutation can do is help species survive through changes in their environment. Finches may mutate into different variations of finches; minnows may mutate into different variations of minnows; salamanders may mutate into different variations of salamanders, but throughout time, natural selection and mutation, the mutated finches, minnows, and salamanders have been (and I believe will still be) finches, minnows, and salamanders. In organisms new and old there’s no change to the basic genome (the DNA structure). There’s no new (not duplicated, and not reduced, but completely NEW) genetic material in any species. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics’ You are describing evolution in the first few lines here. Microevolution as you would term it – a thing which you have already said you don’t believe in. What you’re describing in the last few lines is Ken Ham’s evolution myth. You also realize that the article you link links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_capacitance which I think you’ll find rather interesting because it’s a wonderful bit of evolutionary proof. Well done refuting your own argument. “Epigenetic changes modify the activation of certain genes, but not the genetic code sequence of DNA. The microstructure (not code) of DNA itself or the associated chromatin proteins may be modified, causing activation or silencing…Most epigenetic changes only occur within the course of one individual organism’s lifetime; however, if gene inactivation occurs in a sperm or egg cell that results in fertilization, then some epigenetic changes can be transferred to the next generation.[26] This raises the question of whether or not epigenetic changes in an organism can alter the basic structure of its DNA [which evolution would require to be possible] a form of Lamarckism.” Allow me to quote from the same article; ‘Epigenetics can impact evolution when epigenetic changes are heritable.[1] A sequestered germ line or Weismann barrier is specific to animals, and epigenetic inheritance is more common in plants and microbes. Eva Jablonka, Marion J. Lamb and Étienne Danchin have argued that these effects may require enhancements to the standard conceptual framework of the modern synthesis and have called for an extended evolutionary synthesis.[97][98][99] Other evolutionary biologists have incorporated epigenetic inheritance into population genetics models and are openly skeptical, stating that epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation and histone modification are genetically inherited under the control of natural selection.[100][101][102] Two important ways in which epigenetic inheritance can be different from traditional genetic inheritance, with important consequences for evolution, are that rates of epimutation can be much faster than rates of mutation[103] and the epimutations are more easily reversible.[104] In plants heritable DNA methylation mutations are 100.000 times more likely to occur compared to DNA mutations.[105] An epigenetically inherited element such as thePSI+ system can act as a “stop-gap”, good enough for short-term adaptation that allows the lineage to survive for long enough for mutation and/or recombination to genetically assimilate the adaptive phenotypic change.[106] The existence of this possibility increases the evolvability of a species.’ You’ve earned another well done and a golf clap for utterly failing to back up your point. ‘Also natural selection cannot resolve the problem evolution has with irreducible complexity nor symbiotic relationships.’ Oh. My. God. You keep hitting the bingo boxes don’t you? Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms: deletion of parts; addition of multiple parts (duplication); change of function; addition of a second function to a part; gradual modification of parts. All of these mechanisms have been observed in genetic mutations. In particular, deletions and gene duplications are fairly common and together they make irreducible complexity not only possible but expected. Now, biochemistry is not chance. It inevitably produces complex products. Amino acids and other complex molecules are even known to form in space. Nobody knows what the most primitive cells looked like. All the cells around today are the product of billions of years of evolution. The earliest self-replicator was likely very much simpler than anything alive today; self-replicating molecules need not be all that complex. This is a fairly roundabout argument from incredulity. Nobody denies that the origin of life is an extremely difficult and that it hasn’t been solved. Evolution can seem pretty astonishing by itself. The varied and specific adaptations used by many organisms can seem at times to defy logic. Symbiosis only makes it seem more unlikely — how could two separate species evolve traits that just happen to fit so perfectly together? In fact, many people who question evolution point to symbiosis as “proof” that these couldn’t happen naturally. Natural selection is the key to understanding how symbiosis works. In a given population, some organisms will have traits that are more advantageous to successful reproduction than others. Organisms with those traits are therefore more likely to pass them along to succeeding generations, while those without them have a greater chance of dying before they reproduce. Thus, over many generations, the population will tend to look more and more like the individuals with the successful traits. Some organisms have to have all of their parts (like a giraffe or a camel for instance). And some organisms have to have other organisms in existence to exist in the first place (like bees and flowers). And not only that, but some symbiotic relationships have certain imperative timing for the survival of their kinds. ‘Assumption 3: ALL ORGANISMS AROSE & PERSIST BECAUSE OF RANDOM CHANCE PROCESSES OF NATURE AND MILLIONS OF YEARS. Abiogenesis needs to be proven here.’ I think I’ve answered this one before. ‘Assumption 4: EVOLUTION DEMANDS MILLIONS OF YEARS! Sigh… This is probably the most devastating assumption evolution makes. If the world is millions of years old: Where’s all the fossils for the populations of millions of years worth of dead people, dead animals? Where’s all the precious metals that should be in the sea? Where’s all the oil? Where’s all the structures (like pyramids, towers, great walls, etc) that were created? Why would people just start making stuff a few thousand years ago? We’re missing millions of years of evidence if the world has been around millions of years.’ First off, the world isn’t millions of years old. It’s billions. Secondly, go back up and read my initial response to this claim regarding the fossils. It seems that I pre-empted you by a fair bit. Precious metals? Why the hell would there be precious metals in the sea? A quick google search turns up http://www.planetaryresources.com/2012/10/theres-platinum-in-the-sea-maybe-lets-see/ http://www.whoi.edu/website/deepsea-mining/welcome http://phys.org/news/2015-07-explore-opportunities-precious-metals-thousand.html so it does indeed appear that there are heavy metals in the ocean. The oil? Are you suggesting that 1) we have access to all the oil available, 2) we know where it is. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/world-energy-day-2014-how-much-oil-left-how-long-will-it-last-1471200 We’ve, at a conservative guess, got about 40years worth of oil left. Remember that oil is a liquid fossil and I hope you remember all that bumph I gave you earlier about how rare fossils are. New 14C (coal) is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, 14C from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add “modern” 14C to coal are: Sulfur bacteria, which commonly grow in coal; Secondary carbonates from groundwater that form on fracture surfaces; Whewellite, a carbon-containing mineral, that often forms as coal weathers. Minute amounts of contamination from these sources can cause apparent ages around 50,000 years, which is near the limit of the maximum age that carbon dating can measure. Where’s all the castles and towers, etc? Do you know what archaeology is? Have you ever visited an archaeological site? Have you ever even watched a documentary on, say, the Vikings/Romans/Chinese? ‘Then on the flipside, evolution doesn’t have ENOUGH time to explain the stars, and the expanse, and the galaxies.’ Here’s an example of what you just said; why doesn’t this apple taste like an orange. This is pathetic. Here’s a list of other time issues: https://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~matthewt/yeclaimsbeta.html(While reading understand this post is NOT about proving creation, but about disproving evolution is a “fact”. My point is if we do not know for a “fact” how old the world is, then we need to stop stating “millions of years” matter-of-factly)’ This is head-filled-with-cement moment, but let’s put it to one side for the moment. Even if the earth is only millions of years old, how does this disprove the biological change in species? ‘Time is not on the side of evolution. It’s either too long or too short for the evidence available. So it has not been proven that the world is definitely millions of years old.’ The earth is 4.543 billion years Old! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth You seem to be conflating cosmological evolution, biological evolution and geological evolution. ‘Other things that work against evolution being a “fact”: Dating techniques are NOT certain:http://paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/main/foundation_dating1.html’ Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results. Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions. Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example: The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot. Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth’s tilt and orbital eccentricity. Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method. The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results. Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon. In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic “wood”) or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method. Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb. Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques. ‘Why does the history of language show language go from complex to simple?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language’ You’re actually getting worse. This is copy pasted from some creationist wiki. The first known languages were written languages (else they would not be known). Since most cultures in the world have had no written language, and most people have been illiterate even where written language existed, written language is a poor metric to use to measure language in general. Language had been developing for an unknown period of time before written language evolved. The earliest known writing is simpler than written languages today. There are very simple, nonlinguistic precursors (no grammar) to cuneiform writing. Languages are not becoming less complex overall. They may be simpler in some ways (such as verb endings) but are more complex in others (such as syntax and vocabulary). Evolution is not necessarily a uniform progression from simple to complex. Evolution towards simplicity is consistent with both biological and linguistic evolution. ‘The Cambrian Explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion’ The Cambrian explosion was the seemingly sudden appearance of a variety of complex animals about 540 million years ago, but it was not the origin of complex life. Evidence of multicellular life from about 590 and 560 appears in the Doushantuo Formation in China, and diverse fossil forms occurred before 555. The Cambrian began 543, and the Cambrian explosion is considered by many to start with the first trilobites, about 530. Testate amoebae are known from about 750. There are tracelike fossils more than 1,200 in the Stirling Range Formation of Australia. Eukaryotes (which have relatively complex cells) may have arisen 2,700 Mya, according to fossil chemical evidence. Stromatolites show evidence of microbial life 3,430 Mya. There is isotopic evidence of sulfur-reducing bacteria from 3,470 Mya and possible evidence of microbial etching of volcanic glass from 3,480 Mya. There are transitional fossils within the Cambrian explosion fossils. For example, there are lobopods (basically worms with legs) which are intermediate between arthropods and worms. Only some phyla appear in the Cambrian explosion. In particular, all plants postdate the Cambrian, and flowering plants, by far the dominant form of land life today, only appeared about 140 Mya. Even among animals, not all types appear in the Cambrian. Cnidarians, sponges, and probably other phyla appeared before the Cambrian. Molecular evidence shows that at least six animal phyla are Precambrian. Bryozoans appear first in the Ordovician. Many other soft-bodied phyla do not appear in the fossil record until much later. Although many new animal forms appeared during the Cambrian, not all did. According to one reference, eleven of thirty-two metazoan phyla appear during the Cambrian, one appears Precambrian, eight after the Cambrian, and twelve have no fossil record. The earth was just coming out of a global ice age at the beginning of the Cambrian. A snowball earth before the Cambrian explosion may have hindered development of complexity or kept populations down so that fossils would be too rare to expect to find today. The more favorable environment after the snowball earth would have opened new niches for life to evolve into. Hox genes, which control much of an animal’s basic body plan, were likely first evolving around that time. Development of these genes might have just then allowed the raw materials for body plans to diversify. Cambrian life was still unlike almost everything alive today. Although several phyla appear to have diverged in the Early Cambrian or before, most of the phylum-level body plans appear in the fossil record much later. Using number of cell types as a measure of complexity, we see that complexity has been increasing more or less constantly since the beginning of the Cambrian. ‘How did “primitive” humans make the pyramids?’ You are damn near identical to the people that built the pyramids. The Pyramids are by no means the oldest human structures. Older structures show much less refinement. Earlier structures are not as common because they were often made of wood and bone, which do not preserve as well as stone. The earliest evidence of a man-made habitation is the Terra Amata site in France, which has remains of huts from about 380,000 years ago. Birds build homes. Monkeys do too. Your point is invalid. The evolution of architecture is cultural evolution, which has little or nothing to do with biological evolution. Complex structures were probably driven by the development of agriculture, which ties a community to one location. Evolution into anatomically modern humans predated that by quite a bit. ‘Non-evolved animals: Turtles, Coelacanths, the goblin shark etc.http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150413-can-an-animal-stop-evolving’ Considering you don’t believe in evolution of any sort, why would you sabotage your argument by addressing the issue in this way? The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a “living fossil.” Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically. Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well. Turtle evolution; http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/otherprehistoriclife/a/Prehistoric-Turtles-The-Story-Of-Turtle-Evolution.htm Goblin shark; https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/goblin-shark/ ‘The excuse here is that these are “living fossils”. *Blank stare* I’m not even going to get into the ridiculousness of the denial of this issue.’ Do you get tired of being proved wrong? ‘Out-dated evolutionary thought still argued today as defenses for evolution:http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/contradictions_irony_and_appea046961.html’ Oh no, ‘science changes too often to be right’ vs ‘science never changes and uses outdated data’. ‘Things that don’t show evolution as a “fact”: Bacteria resistance to antibiotics http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=572 (and I already know skeptics hate Christian sites. Just like Christians hate Atheist sites. Oh well. Too bad, so sad. Set aside the deep hatred for anything that comes from someone who doesn’t share your disbelief and read the argument)’ I like the sites you provide. They’re full of Bigfoot conspiracies and flat earth nonsense. I think you’ll also find that ‘athiest sites’ are just scientific sites. ‘Archaeopteryx might not be the transitional form between reptile and bird evolutionists hoped for (if it’s not a fact yet, we shouldn’t claim it to be yet. That’s counting chickens before they hatch): http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/an-ode-to-archaeopteryx-63181085/ Further controversy: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/jul/27/oldest-bird-archaeopteryx-study’ “Transitional” does not mean “ancestral.” It means that the transitional fossil shows a mosaic of features from organisms before and after. It is wrong to say that Archaeopteryx was ancestral to modern birds. But it is also wrong to say that it is not transitional. It is indisputable that Archaeopteryx is an intermediate form between dinosaurs and modern birds. That makes it transitional and gives evidence of the relatedness between dinosaurs and birds. Several other recently discovered dinosaur, bird, and intermediate dinosaur-bird fossils are starting to fill in the gaps and are providing further evidence that the interpretation of Archaeopteryx is correct. I’m going to get round to the rest later. LikeLike
  13. Part deux;
    ‘Even if you’re still convinced evolution is a “fact” (even though it’s not as it’s assumptions aren’t even “facts”), that’s fine. Just understand that if someone understands evolution is not a fact, it might not be because they’re “intellectually dishonest”, uninformed, ignorant, or “scared to believe there’s no God”. It could be just that they don’t find the “evidence” for evolution as compelling as you do.
    While there is overwhelming evidence for evolution to be an ongoing process in nature, that evidence requires a certain level of education simply to understand the process. The concept of random mutations being selected by environmental pressures is not complex, but an understanding that such accidents could accumulate in ways that lead to all the wondrous organisms in the world is not intuitive. So many people who look at eyes, the spining flagella of certain bacteria, the ways in which certain animals are symbiotic, and dozens (hundreds?) of other phenomena simply cannot understand how any of them could have evolved. At that point, the education is no longer relevant, because they feel that there is no way that evolution could have occurred. It simply feels wrong to them.
    Beyond that, particularly in North America, the fact that evolution contradicts the scenario of Creation described in Genesis gives a very large number of people the impetus to ignore the science, even if they did take the time to understand it.

    ‘Scientists have been wrong about their “facts” and scientific inferences (hunches) before (See list of superceded scienceshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories ), and they can be about this again. So to go around galavanting that “evolution is a fact” when we haven’t proven it to be a 100% airtight non-disputed certainty, is wrong.’
    My head feels like it is having a drill pushed into it. Yes, science has produced theories that have failed to produce repeatable and testable processes, but it will be science and scientists that debunk these theories. Evolution is a fact, just as gravity, genetic drift, E=MC2, Curies Law and about a billion other things are facts. You can go back, and I suggest you do, to read the explanation I spent six hours last night researching and writing up. Hell, even if you just go read the wiki page, I would love that.

    ‘No need to take things as personal as people have gotten with me. Yet I remain in a position of not getting aggressive with anyone.’
    Tell me, is your high horse getting scared of heights yet?
    ‘I know you think you’re different, and you have a better reason to claim why the other group is completely unreasonable, but the same argument is being made with as much zeal on the other side, trust me.’
    No, Bri, I am just one more atheist shouting into the void and begging someone who has children to try and not induct them into her cult. Evolution was the topic that brought us together and you and I are just dancing the steps that have gone before us and will no doubt both leave this arena feeling smug.

    ‘It’s the same silly argument on both ends. Idk why either side believes they’re argument is more necessary and original than the other’s.’
    I endeavour to believe as many true things as I can and believe as few false things as possible. I’m not giving you an argument; I’m giving you facts, facts which are testable and verifiable. You’re responding by going down the Ken Ham playbook.

    ‘I’m in neither boat of pointing hostile hateful and hurtful fingers. I don’t call names, holler intellectual dishonesty, ignorance, etc based on someone not agreeing with me. I know it’s not a matter of opinion.’
    That horse getting altitude sickness yet?

    ‘One side is DEFINITELY right. But regardless who that is, all of the hostility is 100% unnecessary so this is why I haven’t participated in its reciprocation.’
    When you start saying things that are demonstrably wrong and then try to doubledown on what you’ve said in a public arena you are going to get shit on. Trump gets it, Clinton gets it, Cameron gets it. You get it.

    ‘The difference in predictive power between evolution and other sciences is one of degree, not kind. All theories are simplifications; they purposely neglect as many outside variables as they can. But these extraneous variables do affect predictions. For example, you can predict the future position of an orbiting planet, but your prediction will be off very slightly because you can not consider the effects of all the small bodies in the solar system.’
    Direct quote from the Counter-creation handbook. A book which directly refutes creationism and supports evolution. My how quote mining creationists can be. I know where you’re going with this and its something I’ve already addressed, but I’ll go into this again in brief.
    We can predict that diseases will become resistant to new antibiotics.
    Predictions do not have to be about the future. They can be a speculative inferance about what happened in the past.
    Oh, oh, are archaeology and astronomy sciences?

    ‘As far as evolution… I understand evolution as a pseudoscience of inference, imagination, wishful thinking, an alternative explanation to creation that does not work, and linking non-related things together based on similarities that can be explained by other means. The assumptions are all unproven, so I’m quite tired of people stating evolution is a fact.’
    Head desk.

    ‘You can hold to it as a stong contending explanation (although I’d still disagree), but you definitely cannot hold it as a “fact”.’
    You’re going to need to tell every single person working in the medical industry that.

    ‘That’s all. No need for emotional investment in the debate though. It is what it is, and it ain’t what it ain’t.’
    If you refuse to see sense and claim you are right in the face of almost overwhelming evidence then you are more emotionally invested in this than I am.

    ‘Some other interesting links I didn’t fit into my argument, but have some interesting information:
    Thoughts from an ex-evolutionist: http://evillusion.blogspot.com/’
    Pretty certain he wouldn’t call himself and evolutionist then.
    100 things evolutionists might dislike:
    ‘http://www.modomedia.com/quantum/100things.html’
    I know that typing ‘hahaha’ makes me look like an asshole, but I can’t help it. I really, really want you to go down the list presented there – actually, fuck it, I’ll blog a response to it.
    ‘Plenty evolutionists that became scientists (this is an “Appeal to Authority” argument, and so I’m NOT using it as proof. Just putting it here because someone was interested in looking into ex-evolutionists. AGAIN, this is NOT disproof. This is simply answering a request. If you tell me I’m trying to use “appeal to authority” I will slap you. Actually I won’t. But I’ll want to.)’
    Appeal to authority says what?

    ‘http://www.creationists.org/former-evoltionists-who-became-young-earth-creation-scientists.html’
    In a totally not appeal to authority you might like to look at these;
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lists_of_creationist_scientists
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
    http://phys.org/news/2009-06-paleontologists-brought-laughter-creation-museum.html
    This last lot here are scientists that have slotted their faith in alongside their understanding of the world and the universe; they understand how it all works and say that science is the tool by which they have come to understand god. They don’t subscribe to creation science or any of that hokey bullshit.
    http://www.livescience.com/5195-god-evolution-exist-scientist.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/06/christians-evolution_n_4732998.html
    http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/worldview/9-groundbreaking-scientists-who-happened-be-christians
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

    ‘I can go on and on, but I can’t state every reason ever to disbelieve in evolution. So I’ll just arbitrarily pick a stopping point. Peace to everyone! I’m out.’
    So this was your best shot?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s