CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Science is the development of explanations for observed phenomena (hypotheses), and the testing of said explanations for their validity. As such, it is incapable of irrefutably proving a claim. Thus, the term "scientific fact" is an oxymoron.
Observable "facts" and science are not equivalent. The former are observed phenomena (hence the term), while the latter is an explanation for the former.
Science is the development of explanations for observed phenomena (hypotheses), and the testing of said explanations for their validity. As such, it is incapable of irrefutably proving a claim. Thus, the term "scientific fact" is an oxymoron
False. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. The scientific method of enquiry can, when wielded by a scientist, yield proofs. Abstracted from its applications, science doesn't prove things, but then if science were viewed in that way, it would be, as you say, useless, which it certainly is not. To say that science as we use it today is incapable of allowing us to prove ideas or establish factual interpretations of physical evidences is utterly puerile.
Through the process of scientific inquiry we have in fact amassed a significant body of facts, from those concerning the atomic structures of the elements, to the chemical composition of stars; the laws of thermodynamics; the mathematical proofs that validate physical concepts, and so on and so forth. The kind of compartmentalization you create between science and fact is dishonest for it implies that science has no ability to determine, predict, or logically deduce and decipher factual information. That simply is not true.
Philosophers -- much to my dislike -- tend to meddle in scientific enquiry in an attempt to redefine it as merely a method of repudiating falsehoods and dealing in probabilities, and most famous among them is probably Descartes, who essentially wrote down the notion that, because we are beings who rely on observation to derive meaning, and because observation can be faulty, we cannot even be entirely certain that we are not just all hallucinating our realities. Fine, if you're an idiot and refuse to accept the aggregates of logic, reason, observation and mathematical deduction as factually authoritative .. but then, if that's your position, what the hell are you doing here? You have absolutely no place to be arguing about what is true and what is not, when nothing can be true as far as you're concerned.
At any rate, facts overwhelmingly support evolution by natural selection. If you're of the Descartesian position and you believe science is nothing but an exercise in probabilistic calculations, then let me assure you, that while it might be possible in your mind that evolution is untrue and that all scientific inquiry in the field is ultimately moot because "anything is possible", there is about the same probability of that as there is a colony of perfect biological clones of Leonard Nemoy spontaneously dropping out of my ass.
"The scientific method of enquiry can, when wielded by a scientist, yield proofs."
In what particular context? Scientific hypotheses are, due to our lack of all possibly relevant knowledge, necessarily incapable of consideration as irrefutable truth. Even Scientific Laws, hypotheses substantiated by decades of data, are unsafe from contradiction; the Theory of Abiogenesis being a great example.
"it would be, as you say, useless"
When, exactly, did I claim science to be useless?
"To say that science as we use it today"
Why specifically science today? Has the scientific method fundamentally changed since its conception?
"Through the process of scientific inquiry we have in fact amassed a significant body of facts,"
*Theories. But do continue.
"the laws of thermodynamics"
The laws of thermodynamics are Scientific Laws, meaning they've been substantiated by many years of data. They are, however, not facts; yes, they're foundational to science as we know it, and as such have no reasonable chance of being disproven, but to call them irrefutible fact is fallacy.
"the mathematical proofs that validate physical concepts,"
Such as?
"The kind of compartmentalization you create between science and fact is dishonest for it implies that science has no ability to determine, predict, or logically deduce and decipher factual information. That simply is not true."
Only your first statement, that I claimed that science has no ability to determine fact, is true. I made no statement concerning its ability to predict or deduce factual information; in fact, I'm well aware that perhaps the greatest measurement of a hypothesis' validity is if it has predictive capability (I.E. if it is capable of accurately predicting the results of relevant experiments and observation).
" Fine, if you're an idiot and refuse to accept the aggregates of logic, reason, observation and mathematical deduction as factually authoritative .. but then, if that's your position, what the hell are you doing here?"
Good thing I'm not such an idiot. Science certainly incorporates logic, reason, observation, and mathematical deduction, but, in a universe where we do not possess all knowledge, assumptions must always be made, and therefore conclusions drawn cannot be irrefutably proven true.
"You have absolutely no place to be arguing about what is true and what is not, when nothing can be true as far as you're concerned."
I'm not entirely sure why you're pushing Descartes' ideals on me; having read your arguments, you've presented no discernible parallels between us, much less demonstrated like ideals.
"At any rate, facts overwhelmingly support evolution by natural selection."
Not to nitpick, but, to my knowledge, mutation, not natural selection, is believed to be the driving force behind Darwinian Evolution. The latter has been demonstrated to be a conservative, rather than creative (as required by Darwinian Evolution) force (http://www.evidentcreation.com/DE-Natsel.html).
In what particular context? Scientific hypotheses are, due to our lack of all possibly relevant knowledge, necessarily incapable of consideration as irrefutable truth. Even Scientific Laws, hypotheses substantiated by decades of data, are unsafe from contradiction; the Theory of Abiogenesis being a great example.
Hypothesis is not the same as theorization, and there is much more to science than hypothesis. It is a FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun. This fact was deduced by modes of scientific inquiry long before man had the capability to venture into space. Science has, does, and will produce factual information. There is absolutely no room for any argument that the Earth may not revolve around the sun, just like there is absolutely no room for the argument that overall entropy does not increase in a closed system. These are irrefutable facts: proven time and again.
Good thing I'm not such an idiot. Science certainly incorporates logic, reason, observation, and mathematical deduction, but, in a universe where we do not possess all knowledge, assumptions must always be made, and therefore conclusions drawn cannot be irrefutably proven true.
This is nonsense. We possess sufficient knowledge to determine by study of the natural world many of the things incorporated and fundamental to that word. Now I don't know what you would call "fact", but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is a duck. The Earth revolves around the sun: fact. The moon revolves around the Earth: fact. The entropy of a closed system increases: fact.
Not to nitpick, but, to my knowledge, mutation, not natural selection, is believed to be the driving force behind Darwinian Evolution. The latter has been demonstrated to be a conservative, rather than creative (as required by Darwinian Evolution) force ( http://www.evidentcreation.com/DE-Natsel.html ).
Therein lies the issue.
Natural selection is a term used to denote what we from retrospective analysis see happening in nature: that those species which survive and reproduce were or are in some way the most "fit" to do so. This is both self-evidently and definitionally true: a species that did not survive -- one that is extinct -- was not "fit" enough in evolutionary terms in order to survive. In other words, since the definition of fitness is based upon a species' survival and reproduction, a species which no longer survives or reproduces is by definition "unfit".
Mutation drives evolution in the most simplistic biological terms -- the formation of new physical characteristics requires mutation -- but natural selection is the mechanism by which nature either finds these mutations advantageous or disadvantageous. A human who develops through biological mutation symptomatic sickle cell anaemia is, generally, going to be less fit to survive and reproduce than a person who develops asymptomatic sickle cell anaemia thus inheriting the positive protections against malaria with none of the negative effects of having deformed red blood cells.
That's natural selection. Mutation is only one factor of evolution by natural selection. Only if and when mutations are advantageous in terms of survival and reproduction, will these mutations lead to long-term progenation of that mutation.
Natural selection "weeds out" disadvantageous mutation, if you like. This is why more than 90% of all species that ever existed, have gone extinct. There are plenty of mutations out there, but relatively few that really benefit organisms.
"Hypothesis is not the same as theorization, and there is much more to science than hypothesis. It is a FACT that the Earth revolves around the sun. This fact was deduced by modes of scientific inquiry long before man had the capability to venture into space. Science has, does, and will produce factual information. There is absolutely no room for any argument that the Earth may not revolve around the sun, just like there is absolutely no room for the argument that overall entropy does not increase in a closed system. These are irrefutable facts: proven time and again."
I stand corrected, in this regard.
Addendum: Previously, I'd only ever heard the term "scientific fact" applied to a theory, hence my stating it to be an oxymoron. I hadn't, until now, considered the results of observation and experimentation to fall under that term, thus validating it (in that context, at least).
"In other words, since the definition of fitness is based upon a species' survival and reproduction, a species which no longer survives or reproduces is by definition "unfit"."
In other words, the definition is tautological.
"Mutation drives evolution in the most simplistic biological terms -- the formation of new physical characteristics requires mutation"
Said mutation never having any significant evidence backing it, of course.
"but natural selection is the mechanism by which nature either finds these mutations advantageous or disadvantageous."
I don't disagree; I was simply pointing out that natural selection is not itself a creative force (an important distinction).
Not really. We use terms like "organism's fitness" to allow us to illustrate succinctly whether or not an organism was/is evolutionarily successful. It's not tautology in the sense that it's not self-contained, abstract nor circular: it is a word that applies to a phenomena that we can see and study. We see that some mutations have been successful, and judging by the extent to which species have historically gone extinct, we also see that most are not. The successful lineages, we call "fit", and the unsuccessful, "unfit". We talk about those species having fitness, being "selected for".
It's necessary for us to ascribe terms to these concepts in order to explore them and succinctly describe what we find. That phenomena we observe -- that organisms mutate and that some are successful and some are not -- is the essence of the entirety of the theory of evolution by natural selection. We evolve, by mutations that are "selected for".
Said mutation never having any significant evidence backing it, of course.
Mutation happens all around us. There are thousands of studied examples of it. Every genetic condition is a result of a mutation. Every cancer is a form of mutation. Every person who has sickle cell anemia does so because of a mutation. The reason that bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics is because of their ability to mutate rapidly. Every swine/bird flu epidemic and SARS outbreak and mutagenic anthrax crisis, every new strain of BSE, foot & mouth, every CF sufferer, every colour blind person, every colour of skin, every person with an epicanthic fold (Oriental eyes): all results of mutations.
Here's a time lapse video of mutation in bacteria:
"Mutation happens all around us. There are thousands of studied examples of it. Every genetic condition is a result of a mutation. Every cancer is a form of mutation. Every person who has sickle cell anemia does so because of a mutation. The reason that bacteria are becoming resistant to antibiotics is because of their ability to mutate rapidly. Every swine/bird flu epidemic and SARS outbreak and mutagenic anthrax crisis, every new strain of BSE, foot & mouth, every CF sufferer, every colour blind person, every colour of skin, every person with an epicanthic fold (Oriental eyes): all results of mutations."
I'm referring to the significant, fundamentally species-altering mutation required by Darwinian Evolution, of which no evidence exists. The closest one can come is with bacteria, which has significant plasticity, yet is still limited in scope, therefore failing to meet the above criteria.
I'm referring to the significant, fundamentally species-altering mutation required by Darwinian Evolution, of which no evidence exists. The closest one can come is with bacteria, which has significant plasticity, yet is still limited in scope, therefore failing to meet the above criteria.
Taxonomy is a framework ascribed by humans to provide succinct characterisation of physical differences between groups of organisms, but nature itself has no divisive grouping: all species in nature are transitory and intermediary in some way. Organisms that share physical characteristics sufficiently similar to be considered the same species, are grouped together. All of these physical differences arise through mutation. In fact, it is impossible for these characteristic differences to be transferred from host to offspring if these physical characteristics are environmentally inflicted (eg. burns, scarring etc). The fact that the deeper we go in the stratum the less variety and complexity in species we see, means that as time went on, more and more different organisms emerged. The conclusion to be drawn is rather simple.
If the further we go back in time through the strata, the fewer numbers of distinct species they are, and the further forward we go, the more different types there are (with in all cases clear and specific mutational differences from ancestral organisms; noting that in the deeper stratum we see an absence of humans, then of proto-humans, then of higher primates, and so on and so forth), then the only logical conclusion is that species evolve from others.
I recommend you to watch the series "Wonders of Life" by Professor Brian Cox, an astrophysicist and all round scientific wonderkid. It does a great job of explaining this with a level of detail and finesse that I am frankly incapable of.
"but nature itself has no divisive grouping: all species in nature are transitory and intermediary in some way."
Your basis for this claim must be extraordinary, since it fundamentally contradicts biochemistry (a great explanation as to why can be found in this article; if you are uninterested in reading it, I'd be happy to provide the relevant quotes: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html) )
"The fact that the deeper we go in the stratum the less variety and complexity in species we see, means that as time went on, more and more different organisms emerged."
Such as those in the Cambrian layer?
"If the further we go back in time through the strata, the fewer numbers of distinct species they are, and the further forward we go, the more different types there are (with in all cases clear and specific mutational differences from ancestral organisms; noting that in the deeper stratum we see an absence of humans, then of proto-humans, then of higher primates, and so on and so forth), then the only logical conclusion is that species evolve from others."
I have yet to see an even somewhat continuous fossil record of a species changing into another, dissimilar species, let alone these so-called "proto-humans" you speak of. If such records are so readily apparent, as you claim, surely presenting an example or two shouldn't prove difficult?
We now consider further the question of how the existing alleles could have originated by mutations according to the theory of evolution. An allele is a particular version of a gene; it is a segment of DNA that codes for a protein. Each protein has a three-dimensional shape (tertiary structure) which has a large influence on its function in the organism. There is a good introduction to the tertiary structure of proteins in the appendix to Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box. The problem is that mutations which change the tertiary structure of a protein coded for by an allele are generally harmful. Harmful mutations will be eliminated from the population. But all the different existing shapes of proteins had to be generated from somewhere, according to the theory of evolution. They must have evolved from much smaller proteins by a series of mutations that changed their shape until the current proteins arose. However, this contradicts the fact that changes to shape are generally harmful, and will be eliminated from the population. If this contradiction cannot be resolved, then the theory of evolution is refuted. So we are trying to consider the mechanisms that could account for changes in shape of proteins, and their likelihood of occurrence, in order to see whether the theory of evolution is plausible.
First of all, that these mutations are generally harmful is not in contention. What is in contention, is that mutations usually being harmful does not mean that they can't sometimes be helpful. As I said before, more than 90% of species in history have gone extinct, for this exact reason. Those with beneficial mutations, did not.
It is the shape of a folded protein and the precise positioning of the different kinds of amino acid groups that allow a protein to work ... . For example, if it is the job of one protein to bind specifically to a second protein, then their two shapes must fit each other like a hand in a glove. If there is a positively charged amino acid on the first protein, then the second protein better have a negatively charged amino acid; otherwise, the two will ot stick together. If it is the job of a protein to catalyze a chemical reaction, then the shape of the enzyme generally matches the shape of the chemical that is its target. When it binds, the enzyme has amino acids precisely positioned to cause a chemical reaction. If the shape of a wrench or jigsaw is significantly warped, then the tool doesn't work. Likewise, if the shape of a protein is warped, then it fails to do its job.
I can see where this is heading. Biochemistry naturally produces complex molecules. Those molecules, would have evolved from much simpler ones, all the way back to the most basic biochemical structures that used simple proton gradients to survive.
Since the function of a typical protein molecule is highly sensitive to its shape, any mutation that changes the shape of a protein is likely to destroy its function altogether. Such a mutation will probably be harmful, and be eliminated from the population. So in order to account for the gradual changes required by the theory of evolution, we have to find a mutation-based mechanism that can lead to small and cumulative shape changes resulting in proteins that are increasingly able to fulfil some function in the organism. The kinds of non-harmful mutations that are typically discussed by evolutionists do not change the tertiary structure of a protein. It should be clear that such mutations are radically different from those that are needed to generate proteins having new shapes.
This is nonsense. Complex proteins are highly robust, making them extremely evolvable. Simple examples of rapid protein mutation is found in every human body: the ability to destroy pathogens by functional modification of antibodies. Every time you develop immunity to a disease, complex proteins are changing structure in your bloodstream. Without the ability to survive structural changes, the proteins in our antibody cells would be useless for their purposes. This is just one example. There are literally thousands, in every species.
For two proteins to interact, their shapes and charge distributions have to match very closely. Since each protein had to evolve independently, the question arises as to how this very close match of shapes and properties could arise.
Your claims contradict it, yet they have no substantiation behind them. Your second claim assumes Darwinian Evolution as a premise (which, given your goal in this debate of proving Darwinian Evolution, falls under the fallacy of circular reasoning), and your third is ridiculous; fundamentally, the more complex a system, the less stability it possesses.
Your second claim assumes Darwinian Evolution as a premise (which, given your goal in this debate of proving Darwinian Evolution, falls under the fallacy of circular reasoning),
Is that what you think this is about? This isn'y about proving evolution anymore than it is about proving that the Earth revolves around the sun. It's about giving you enough information in response to your arguments to show you that you don't understand the premises you are arguing against, which makes your input in this debate only as valuable as your willingness or unwillingness to learn something new from it.
Your claims contradict it, yet they have no substantiation behind them.
... your third is ridiculous; fundamentally, the more complex a system, the less stability it possesses.
"This isn'y about proving evolution anymore than it is about proving that the Earth revolves around the sun. It's about giving you enough information in response to your arguments to show you that you don't understand the premises you are arguing against, which makes your input in this debate only as valuable as your willingness or unwillingness to learn something new from it."
So, you're presenting information you claim to be factual, and if I fail to simply take your word for its correctness, I'm unwilling to "learn something new from it"?
My relative knowledge or willing to learn is only relevant to this debate insofar as I am able to contribute to it. This discussion is on the subject of Darwinian Evolution, and bringing into question my ability to accept viewpoints I had disagreed with (somewhat ironic, given my unhesitating admission to being incorrect about the validity of the term "scientific fact" once I realized that was the case) contributes nothing to it.
Your sources only demonstrate that stable proteins are better able to mutate (presumably, and ironically, becoming less stable in the process). Your original claim, the one being disputed, is that "complex proteins are highly robust".
Your sources only demonstrate that stable proteins are better able to mutate
They are better able to survive mutation compared to less complex proteins. A human is a very complex organism with many moving parts. When a human's chromosomes mutate to give you hemochromatosis (excess iron in your haemoglobin), this does not kill you, the organism. Complexity allows for failsafe mechanisms that allow more significant mutations to occur without necissarily being fatal to the organism. Liken it to whatever you want: a complex and diverse economy; a wealth of options in partners, putting your eggs into many baskets.
When a very simple structure with a one-dimensional function mutates, the likelihood that that mutation will cause malfunctions is higher than if a very complex structure mutates This is why DNA itself can mutate so variably, in incalculable numbers of ways, as well as being able to produce a mind-boggling number of chemicals that also can change or alter on some beneficial or harmful way.
There are around 37.2 trillion cells in every adult human body, each cell containing (usually) 46 chromosomes, each chromosome consisting of on average around 23,000 genes (each gene itself containing around 130,000 base pairs) and being able to encode for about 500 different proteins on average, every protein consisting of a myriad of complex molecular structures, totalling 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms, all interacting furiously. That's more stars than are in the observable universe!!!
Only taking into account chromosomes and their protein building abilities (there are many other factors that can effect, alter, halter or change processes and structures in humans): then if every cell in the body only codes but one, single protein each day (in reality each codes for many times more than this), then there are 19,678,800,000,000,000,000,712 daily opportunities for a protein molecule to mutate, even slightly. This doesn't take into account anywhere near the real number of processes that occur in the human body each day, which is exponentially higher. Many of those proteins will not be used, many of those proteins will be faulty. As many as one percent of them, depending on the health of the person, and the type of ribosome we are talking about. But it only takes ONE beneficial mutation to make a change that enhances an organism's functioning.
(presumably, and ironically, becoming less stable in the process)
Stability is not as clear cut as that. Many mutations cause greater stability, improved function, superior robustness. The mutation that codes for the bone density of native Africans allows these people significantly higher protection from bone fractures. That mutation has increased the relative health of the organism in question.
If mutation, as you claim, often causes greater stability, how, then, can it be the measure by which you determine the inherent stability of a protein?
Having thought your statement through, I concede the validity of your point. However, while it does contradict the article I linked to, it also, if I'm not mistaken, serves to discredit Darwinian Evolution: the hypothetical "first" organism, being magnitudes simpler than modern life, would thus possess comparatively very little stability, and therefore would be much less likely to remain intact after mutating, thus greatly lowering its ability to alter itself over time.
It only takes one. An organism can stay the same for a long, long time if its mutations are not beneficial, but as soon as a beneficial mutation comes along, it is likely to thrive all the same.
If X works, but Xa doesn't work, and Xb doesn't work, and Xc doesn't work, and Xd doesn't work, and Xe doesn't work, then X is likely to be fine as just X, while the others die out. But when Xz works, then X and Xz are likely to thrive. So on, so forth.
"If X works, but Xa doesn't work, and Xb doesn't work, and Xc doesn't work, and Xd doesn't work, and Xe doesn't work, then X is likely to be fine as just X, while the others die out. But when Xz works, then X and Xz are likely to thrive. So on, so forth."
Except for the fact that mutation is limited in scale; it's simply incapable of transforming a species into another, dissimilar species, a prerequisite to the validity of Darwinian Evolution.
Differentiate between a species and a specimen. If a specimen of one species develops a beneficial physical characteristic undeveloped in its peers, it will be fundamentally physically different from other specimens of the same species.
A, Ab.
If the specimen with the developed beneficial characteristic further mutates another beneficial characteristic, or if the original species does so:
A, Ab, Abc ... or .... A, Ac, Ab.
This can and does continue numerous times, until specimens of the same species share distinctively different traits (black skin, white skin, blue eyes, green eyes, bigger muscles etc etc), though not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species.
But given enough time, these shifts in character leads to specimens which are so fundamentally different from their ancestors that they have difficulty breeding with that species anymore.
Beagles and Irish-setters, for instance, are notoriously difficult to breed. Lions and tigers, though both cats, are difficult to breed together and almost always produce sterile, mentally deficit offspring.
Yet, lions and tigers share a common ancestor, found in strata bearing compositions within which no tigers or lions have ever been found. In otherwords, the overwhelming evidence is that tigers and lions didn't always exist. Then, how did they arise?
If a creature did not exist at a time, then how did it come to exist?
This is the fundamental question when observing strata and isolated ecosystems. How can what wasn't, be, if not as a result of what was?
"This can and does continue numerous times, until specimens of the same species share distinctively different traits (black skin, white skin, blue eyes, green eyes, bigger muscles etc etc), though not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species."
Thank you for acknowledging my point. Mutation is, as you stated, incapable of changing a species into another, dissimilar species. Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is an impossibility.
"Yet, lions and tigers share a common ancestor, found in strata bearing compositions within which no tigers or lions have ever been found. In otherwords, the overwhelming evidence is that tigers and lions didn't always exist. Then, how did they arise?"
First of all, the fossil record is far from complete. Just because a fossil of a particular species hasn't been found in a particular estimated time period doesn't mean they didn't exist at that time.
Second, what, exactly, is this "common ancestor", what fossils have been found proving its existence as a species, and what basis exists for claiming it to be the common ancestor of both tigers and lions?
"This is the fundamental question when observing strata and isolated ecosystems. How can what wasn't, be, if not as a result of what was?"
I find it funny how nicely your statement substantiates the existence of God.
Thank you for acknowledging my point. Mutation is, as you stated, incapable of changing a species into another, dissimilar species. Therefore, Darwinian Evolution is an impossibility.
I haven't substantiated your point at all. I've said mutation occurs within species. Mutation occurs within species, and when the mutations are sufficient for the characteristics of a specimen to be physically different enough that the specimen doesn't breed with its ancestral species, then it is a different species.
First of all, the fossil record is far from complete. Just because a fossil of a particular species hasn't been found in a particular estimated time period doesn't mean they didn't exist at that time.
If we see consistency in the types and forms of species found in particular layers of deep strata, while we see a consistency of greater divergence in shallower strata, this is enough to conclude that species diverged over time. Anything to the contrary is silly.
Second, what, exactly, is this "common ancestor", what fossils have been found proving its existence as a species, and what basis exists for claiming it to be the common ancestor of both tigers and lions?
Greater divergence is found in shallower strata. Within each lineage, we see clear signs of mutation and selection. I would point you towards reading the plethora of fossil related information, but specifically, how the inner ear was formed, and the stages of a developing mammalian embryo.
Also, for the lions and tigers specifically, see here:
Solé, F., R. Smith, T. Coillot, E. De Bast, T. Smith. 2014. DENTAL AND TARSAL ANATOMY OF 'MIACIS' LATOURI AND A PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS OF THE EARLIEST CARNIVORAFORMS (MAMMALIA, CARNIVORAMORPHA). Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 34(1): 1-21.
I find it funny how nicely your statement substantiates the existence of God.
So you think that the fundamental question when observing strata and isolated ecosystems -- how can what wasn't be, if not as a result of what was -- proves the concept of a metaphysical, immaterial being which is unfalsifiable, unobservable, untestable and unquantifiable by all known laws and standards of biology, paleontology, geology, matter and energy: the exact summation of the sciences we utilize to study evolution???
What part of "though [mutation is] not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species." fails to substantiate my point?
"If we see consistency in the types and forms of species found in particular layers of deep strata, while we see a consistency of greater divergence in shallower strata, this is enough to conclude that species diverged over time. Anything to the contrary is silly."
Assuming that statement is entirely true (regardless of your failure to provide a basis for it), it still doesn't itself substantiate Darwinian Evolution. In order to do so, there must be specific, continuous records of one species developing over time into another, dissimilar species, which is simply not the case.
"Greater divergence is found in shallower strata. Within each lineage, we see clear signs of mutation and selection. I would point you towards reading the plethora of fossil related information, but specifically, how the inner ear was formed, and the stages of a developing mammalian embryo."
"So you think that the fundamental question when observing strata and isolated ecosystems -- how can what wasn't be, if not as a result of what was -- proves the concept of a metaphysical, immaterial being which is unfalsifiable, unobservable, untestable and unquantifiable by all known laws and standards of biology, paleontology, geology, matter and energy: the exact summation of the sciences we utilize to study evolution???"
I apologize. My statement was intended as a musing regarding the parallels between your statement and a particular Creationist argument, not an argument.
Every single point you make has been answered and put to bed by me and others several times and yet you persist , when I asked you before why no reputable scientist or organisation took any of this creationist bullshit seriously you claimed it was big conspiracy against creationists.
After reading your latest tripe I could read no more without interjecting as Sean is being very easy on you ; you now provide a link to the rantings of the mentally unbalanced John Morris a young earth creationist who's lunacy knows no limits .....from wiki
I especially disassociate myself from the blasphemous use of a profound Scriptural truth to promote a scientific and political lie.
—John D. Morris[1]
John D. Morris is a young Earth creationist and the current president of the Institute for Creation Research.[2] He is the son of the Institute's founder, Henry Morris.
Before he ascended to the throne previously occupied by his father he was the author of a number of hard-hitting articles published by the Institute, including What Can We Do About the Public Schools?,[3] What is the Connection Between Homosexuality and Evolution?,[4] and Are Plants Alive?.[5]
See that for lunacy the connection between Evolution and homosexuality , what do you hope to achieve with these constant attacks against Evolution ?
Who are you trying to convince ?
Evolution is accepted as FACT by most rational people get over it .....
"Oh dear you never stop spouting nonsense do you ?"
How very ironic, coming from one such as yourself.
"Every single point you make has been answered and put to bed by me and others several times and yet you persist ,"
You say that as if I'm asking questions; this is a debate platform, not a lecture program.
"when I asked you before why no reputable scientist or organisation took any of this creationist bullshit seriously..."
Actually, what you asked me was why Creationist science has largely failed to be peer-reviewed; it had nothing to do with anyone taking it seriously.
"you claimed it was big conspiracy against creationists."
If you ignore the entirety of the article I provided, sure.
"After reading your latest tripe I could read no more without interjecting as Sean is being very easy on you"
They're doing a much better job of substantiating their arguments, and have, unlike you, actually forced me to consider my arguments more carefully. If "being very easy on [me]" is how you're trying to say "being rational, and using a rational basis rather than assuming the validity of their statements", you're most certainly correct.
"you now provide a link to the rantings of the mentally unbalanced John Morris a young earth creationist who's lunacy knows no limits"
Even if your claim is true (I'll be on that in a minute), that article is not exclusive; there are many others out there. I simply chose the most convenient.
"I especially disassociate myself from the blasphemous use of a profound Scriptural truth to promote a scientific and political lie."
How, exactly, is this statement, without any sort of context whatsoever, the ramblings of a lunatic?
"Who are you trying to convince ?"
I'm not particularly interested in convincing anyone; all I'm doing is determining truth through rational discussion, something which you appear (given your obnoxious persistence in claiming fallacious to be thinking absolute fact) to be incapable of.
"Evolution is accepted as FACT by most rational people get over it ....."
How many times have we gone over this? Darwinian Evolution, being a scientific hypothesis, is fundamentally incapable of being proven as irrefutable fact. If you have any points to back up this claim, other than "but it's a fact", feel free to do so; otherwise, nothing will be gained from this discussion.
Thats funny considering I clearly proved you wrong on every point you made , and what's really amusing is that I'm actually conversing with a young earth creationist when most simply correctly ignore you nd your lots nonsense .
Yes you asked questions in the past all were answered your failure to comprehend is natural to you .
Hilarious , creationist science only exists for the looney fringe and no rational person takes it seriously
I read the article the common consensus amongst real scientists was it was nonsense
People like you never consider their arguments proof being my destruction of your previous efforts ... with ease
Why not post your best one up or is that not convenient?
The ramblings of a lunatic would be in his papers regarding homosexuality and Evolution also he is a young earth creationist which does suggest he's unbalanced to say the least
You don't want truth you've made that obvious in the past , my persistence as you put it is merely in your mind it is after all a debating website something you seem to be unaware of , I corrected you in the past and you got irked ... get over it
I've backed up the claim several times of Evolution being accepted as fact by rational beings , you're not one so your state of dumbfounded incomprehension is understandable .
Incidentally why not go back on our previous and see where I covered this and all your other tired creationist horseshit ?
"Thats funny considering I clearly proved you wrong on every point you made ,"
Care to provide an example?
"and what's really amusing is that I'm actually conversing with a young earth creationist when most simply correctly ignore you's and your nonsense ."
Hilarity of your use of "you's" aside, from what basis do you assume me to be a Young Earth Creationist?
"Yes you asked questions in the past all were answered your failure to comprehend is natural to you ."
I don't think you understand the nature of debate. Given your previous posts, it certainly looks that way.
"Hilarious , creationist science only exists for the looney fringe and no rational person takes it seriously"
Other than all the Creationist scientists in the world.
"I read the article the common consensus amongst real scientists was it was nonsense"
Said consensus being derived from what source, taking your word for it?
"People like you never consider their arguments proof being my destruction of your previous efforts ... with ease"
If you'd like to form a coherent sentence now and again, I'd be happy to oblige. Until such a day arrives, however (if it indeed does), I'll be unable to do so.
"The ramblings of a lunatic would be in his papers regarding homosexuality and Evolution"
Once again, you justify your claims by reaffirming them, which is, as stated more times than I care to remember, well known as circular reasoning.
"also he is a young earth creationist which does suggest he's unbalanced to say the least"
Based on what evidence?
"You don't want truth you've made that obvious in the past , my persistence as you put it is merely in your mind it is after all a debating website something you seem to be unaware of , I corrected you in the past and you got irked ... get over it"
I feel like you're making progress on sentence structure; this one almost made sense, and I'm beginning to be able to formulate what you might mean by it.
"I've backed up the claim several times of Evolution being accepted as fact by rational beings ,"
Darwinian Evolution is only accepted as "fact" by those who don't understand science (or logic, for that matter), as you've clearly demonstrated.
Further, the only substantiation you have ever provided for your claim of Darwinism's irrefutable nature is that it is indeed factual. I have yet to see you provide any rational basis for your statements.
"you're not [a rational person]"
Really? I understand and rationally apply logic, am capable of changing my stance on a matter if proven incorrect, and, perhaps most importantly, am capable and willing to use basic grammar and spelling, all of which you appear to be incapable of.
By what measure, then, do you judge my rationality? Presumably it's on whether I agree with such an astute mind as yourself on a given matter.
"so your state of dumbfounded incomprehension is understandable ."
Yes, I understand Darwinian Evolution so poorly that I'm familiar with its conceptual problems and am capable of rationally arguing against it. Congratulations: your statement is so fundamentally contradictory to reality that I'm currently questioning why I bothered replying to you.
"Incidentally why not go back on our previous and see where I covered this and all your other tired creationist horseshit ?"
None of what you stated previously is any different (in terms of rationality or methodology) than what you're claiming now. I fail to see how forcing myself to reread your inane gibber will be of any use.
Actually, now that I think about it, I did say in my last post that if you failed to provide any rational basis for Darwinian Evolution there would be no reason to further the discussion, so, since you clearly have no interest in doing so, I'll take my own advice and discontinue this communication (if you can even call it that).
I have provided several examples from our last encounter as well you know
By your own admittance unless you were lying which is probable 🤔
You're misunderstanding of the compound form of you's is so typical of a special needs person ... that's you 😳
Yes I agree you cannot debate as your previous encounters prove
Creationist scientists 😂 Yes the looney fringe no one else takes them seriously ... any peer reviewed papers yet 😂
Well who's word would you believe scientists or loonies like you ?
A coherent sentence ? This coming from a young earth creationist is beyond funny 😂
I justify my claims by stating what is fact about your ' pin up boy ' and his arguments .... you need to work on your ' logic '
Based on the fact he is a young earth creationist which even to a retard like you should be a big red warning light
I'm making progress on sentence structure 😂 Thank you so much 👌 You are making zero progress in understanding Evolution though ,whys that ?
Yes your stance regarding Evolution is predictable as you're still a retard
I base my claims on the fact that you're thick as paste and you rely on the word of young earth creationist as your supporting evidence ( because it's convenient ) making you totally irrational
Yes you do not understand Evolution , thank you for agreeing
Yes you have permission to withdraw as rationality is not your strong point , you were easily dismissed last time and cowered of with your final last gasp of indignant rage when you claimed .....
The scientific community was involved in a huge conspiracy against the ' real truth ' ..... so tell me any peer reviewed papers from your ' community ' yet 🙀 The silence is deafening 😂
Terribly sorry, but the recovering Grammar Nazi in me is forcing me to reply; I have no interest in any piece of rambling but this one: "You're misunderstanding of the compound form of you's is so typical of a special needs person ... that's you 😳"
To begin with, your use of the term "you're" is incorrect, as "you're" is a contraction of the phrase "you are", and the sentence "you are misunderstanding of the compound... [etc.]" is nonsensical. The correct term is "your", the possessive form, as you're claiming the misunderstanding to be a quality of mine.
Second, perhaps even more ironically, the term "you's" is inherently nonsensical, as it's a contraction of the phrase "you is", which is grammatically incorrect (the correct form of "to be" for "you" is "are", as the form "is" always refers to the third-person.).
Given your unforgivably moronic posts, I can only conclude that you're hopelessly attempting to troll me. Congratulations: in this regard, you've succeeded.
The grammar nazi in you is a usual tactic from your type and usually a last resort and is an improvement on your last efforts where you blatantly lied in an attempt to bolster your ridiculously flawed position .
The subject of Evolution is far to complex for you as your understanding of science is extremely weak and I suggest maybe John Morris isn't the best guide you could have picked ; still no peer reviewed work from Johnny why's that retard ?
it's understandable you resort to lying and attacks on grammar as you have nothing else .
You don't really understand grammar either do you , ask your minder to explain compound forms 👌🙀
So let's see still no peer reviewed papers to support your nonsense as I asked several times whys that ?
Can you even cite one example surely even a halfwit like you can cite one recognised piece to support your horeshit .....?
Again wait for the silence ....🙀
So my posts are moronic and this coming from a retard who's information about Evolution comes from a young earth creationist site 😂
You probably don't realise but it's mainly in the US that young earth creationists are taken seriously and elsewhere they are rightly seen in the same light as followers of David Icke and similar nuts .
Your lack of understanding of Evolution is forgivable because you're a retard and when people start quoting the words of loonies like John Morris you realise how far gone they are ; regards trolling well again more lies as most people have corrected your inane gibberish regards Evolution and yet like a true retard you continue with your horseshit 👉🐴 💩💩💩
To prove that you are indeed a liar and and a coward here is my last posting regarding your nonsensical claims regarding Evolution and not surprisingly when everyone of your questions were addressed not surprisingly you skulked off like the coward you are ; also anyone interested can see you also ban people who corrrect you .
Read below your last humiliation it's gotta hurt 🙀🙀
You say .........
My claim is based on, first, my (again, admittedly limited) experience with the Public School system (both personal and second-hand), and second, the many information-suppressing actions taken by, particularly, colleges: refusing to allow speakers who make "offensive" (read: unorthodox) statements, possessing "safe spaces" to shelter those who wish to remain ignorant to any view point that wasn't forced upon them, and the like.
To reiterate, providing clarification as to how my statement was "unfair and disingenuous", not to mention "ridiculous", as you're now claiming, would be quite helpful and conducive to rational discussion.....
I don't think you want to do rational but merely want to hear yourself
You say .....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you claiming that all public schools are open to all "valid" information? That would imply that all executive staff in every single school in the world is wholly unbiased, a thoroughly asinine claim.....
Another ridiculous ploy by you to avoid an uncomfortable truth when you were the one who said valid information was being dismissed by schools so using your skewed logic that would imply valid information was being suppressed by by every single school in the world .
you say ....
Perhaps my previous statements were not clear enough; the suppressed information I've repeatedly referred to is information contrary or inconvenient to the current political and/or scientific orthodoxy...
Wrong again it does not offer a challenge to the scientific evidence supporting evolution so rightly it's left with the crackpots who support such nonsense .
You say .....
Twice, now, you've claimed my comparison to be unfair, yet, despite my explicit request for clarification and substantiation, you've provided neither. Baseless accusations of "you're unfair" are neither helpful nor conducive to rational discussion.
"That point makes no sense at all ..."....
I fail to see what you're missing here you're saying you're forced or brainwashed into accepting evolution as fact it is irrefutable fact except by the looney fringe somi suggest you either ' debunk ' it or move on .
You say ....Oh? Please tell me how, rather than making an unsubstantiated, general accusation.....
Please clarify what you're attempting to say
You say .....
Said "mountains of evidence" being...?
Ah so you haven't done any research ? And you're not aware of this fact maybe it's about time you did some research ?
You say ......
So... despite the fact that many interpretations of a given work exist... the fact that a given person will accept one interpretation over the others means that the very idea of religion is rigid?
Yes because you're neglecting to say we are talking about is a RELIGIOUS work which if one disagrees with means expulsion from the group thus the 30 ,000 different denominations of religion proving they are all rigid in their own interpretation ..
You say ....
What's more, you seem to have ignored my pointing out that attacking religion, much less baselessly so, is completely irrelevant to this discussion, so I must reiterate: attacking religion does not, in any way, shape, or form, add to this discussion, or contribute to your position in this discussion...
Well you're wrong again as your thinking on this matter is obviously influenced by religious thinking , also it not to add to or make my points stronger it it certainly weakens yours .
You say ...
And said conclusions can be said to be, with complete certainty, factual in nature?. ...
Ridiculous point can anything be said with complete certainty ?
You say .....
Furthermore, a single experiment is no basis for a hypothesis's ascent to Scientific Theory. Take "Airy's failure", for example. In said experiment, Airy failed to prove the rotation of the Earth (Google it, if you need more information). Does this mean that the Earth can't possibly be rotating? Of course not. Just because a single, specific, limited experiment lends itself to particular conclusions doesn't mean said conclusions are automatically reasonable, much less objectively correct......
Read the overwhelming evidence for evolution and if your say it's nonsense so what ?
You actually sound like a flat earther
You say ....
"Faith does not come into scientific thinking"
Irrelevant and unsubstantiated, but do go on...
So why did you mention it in your earlier thread regarding evolution ?
Please do go on :)
You say .....
Stating the existence of evidence doesn't mean said evidence actually exists. To confirm your statement (which, like many of its kin, is thus far completely baseless), you'd have to provide actual evidence of Darwinian Evolution.
Again wrong and another head in the sand statement from you why noypt try a google search .. evidence for evolution . I know it's a crazy idea isn't it ?
You say . ..
"Stating a fact is not mocking others if you think me correctly stat
Dismissing those who disagree with your faith (which is, as previously stated [and, perhaps ironically, ignored], the proper description of your belief in Darwinian Evolution as factual) as "religious zealots" or the like is, regardless of how factual you believe the object of your faith to be, mockery.
"You base this assumption on what ?"
There's that stupid religious word again faith American ( mostly ) opponents of evolution are indeed entirely mock worthy
You say ....
When did I claim that I was right because I was more informed than you? All I did was refute your claim that you were the more informed of us two, and that I hadn't done any meaningful research on the subject...
Here is what you said in your last thread .....
Considering your apparent lack of knowledge of the nature and mechanisms of Science, I dare say I'm significantly more informed on the subject than you. It's ironic, then, that you're condescendingly suggesting I "do a bit of serious research on the subject"....
Remember now ?
Tell me why are you deliberately lying ?
If you have to resort to such cheap tactics to make a point we are through .
Why are you arguing if you've failed to do any research on evolution ?
Make your mind up you said you were significantly more informed yet you've done no research , make your mind up which is it ?
What part of "though [mutation is] not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species." fails to substantiate my point?
I said Differentiate between a species and a specimen. If a specimen of one species develops a beneficial physical characteristic undeveloped in its peers, it will be fundamentally physically different from other specimens of the same species.
A, Ab.
If the specimen with the developed beneficial characteristic further mutates another beneficial characteristic, or if the original species does so:
A, Ab, Abc ... or .... A, Ac, Ab.
This can and does continue numerous times, until specimens of the same species share distinctively different traits (black skin, white skin, blue eyes, green eyes, bigger muscles etc etc), though not sufficient enough to change the specimens' functions and characteristics to the point where they can justifiably be termed a different species, hence they are specimens of the same species.
But <---- given enough time, these shifts in character lead to specimens which are so fundamentally different from their ancestors that they have difficulty breeding with [the ancestral] species anymore ...
You've taken the first part of this to mean that I agree with you. That's not the case. I am describing here, to you, the process of mutation, selection, and speciation, bearing in mind that it is humankind who apply taxonomic classifications and differentiate between "species". Easier to explain it in a step by step process than to bombard you with jargon.
Assuming that statement is entirely true (regardless of your failure to provide a basis for it), it still doesn't itself substantiate Darwinian Evolution. In order to do so, there must be specific, continuous records of one species developing over time into another, dissimilar species, which is simply not the case.
It most definitely does substantiate (partly at least) evolution by natural selection. If a species which was not present at an earlier time period, becomes present, it must have derived from a species that was there before it. Otherwise, did it pop out of thin air?
You make yourself look very stupid by posting sources like these. The Institute for Creation Research has not published a single peer-reviewed scientific study or experiment in any scientific journal. It is not an authority on science. This article is tripe. Its author holds a degree in what is essentially building construction, and is a vehement "Young Earth Creationist".
Note that the article contains no sources, no references, no experiments or evidence, nothing. Just the word of a man who believes that the Earth is only about 6000 years old. A man who has been making a career out of misrepresenting scientific findings since 1984.
Please ... disassociate yourself from this crowd if you want to undertake scientific debate.
"You've taken the first part of this to mean that I agree with you. That's not the case. I am describing here, to you, the process of mutation, selection, and speciation, bearing in mind that it is humankind who apply taxonomic classifications and differentiate between "species". Easier to explain it in a step by step process than to bombard you with jargon."
If I recall correctly, you never explicitly stated mutations to be capable of altering a species into a wholly dissimilar one, nor have you provided any evidence supporting the notion that mutations can simply "build up" indefinitely.
"It most definitely does substantiate (partly at least) evolution by natural selection. If a species which was not present at an earlier time period, becomes present, it must have derived from a species that was there before it. Otherwise, did it pop out of thin air?"
What about the Cambrian Explosion? You tell me.
"Please ... disassociate yourself from this crowd if you want to undertake scientific debate."
Fair enough. I suppose I should've taken time to discern the credibility of a given source.
EDIT:
This may sound somewhat strange, since we're opponents, but I'd like to say that I greatly appreciate your use of both legitimate reasoning and civility (especially after just having been reminded of a particular someone who understands neither). I find engaging in discussion where my beliefs are challenged on a rational basis and, occasionally, altered, to be a most rewarding experience, especially since such discussion is so terribly infrequent.
Seeing as you state .......( especially after just having been reminded of a particular someone who understands neither)
May I remind you in our first encounter regarding Evolution I was indeed civil and answered all your questions fairly and clearly it's only when you deliberately lied and resorted to insult that the mood changed .
You also banned another from your last Evolution debate for no reason other than to save face ; in future instead of acting in this cowardly manner why not bring up a good argument instead ?
This response is not to gratify you, but to clarify the situation at hand to anyone else who may read this:
"May I remind you in our first encounter regarding Evolution I was indeed civil and answered all your questions fairly and clearly it's only when you deliberately lied and resorted to insult that the mood changed ."
Not once in our first "discussion" did you hold any veneer of civility, nor present any credible evidence to support your claim. Your overarching substantiation for any given claim was, as I remember all too well, "X is true because X is true", or, more disappointingly, "X is true because 'rational people' agree that X is true".
"You also banned another from your last Evolution debate for no reason other than to save face"
I assume you're referring to Cartman? The only reason I have ever banned another person in a debate (them included) is because they have demonstrated a clear lack of interest in civil, rational discussion, specifically after having been explicitly asked to do so after descending into baseless personal insults. That person specifically, after having been banned for failing to follow along these perfectly reasonable parameters, sent me private messages filled with more baseless insults and attempts to provoke a reaction. In short, my reason for banning them was anything but "saving face"; censorship, in my personal philosophy, is a last resort.
"in future instead of acting in this cowardly manner why not bring up a good argument instead ?"
In what way, exactly, is banning someone acting wholly inappropriately from a debate, and then privately offering to continue the discussion if they agree to be civil and rational (at which point being baselessly mocked and insulted) acting in a "cowardly" manner? The answer, of course, is not at all: once again, you insult me with no basis or purpose other than to provoke a reaction.
Why would I assume your response would be to gratify me ?
Clarification is always good and a it's a pity you resorted to your earlier cowardly attack .
Well again you're incorrect my rule on here has been if you throw the first insult you will receive the same back and indeed it was you who did so and I called you on it ; my claim was Evolution was fact this is still the case and you still cannot accept that in science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.
But yet you dance and scream and shout at the unfairness of it all ; I also asked you to provide any evidence of as in peer reviewed papers that would counter what I claimed , you stated the burden of proof was on me as I stated Evolution was fact and the case for Evolution is my proof .
The mountains of evidence regarding my claim do indeed support the case for Evolution.
You also claimed that ' creationist scientists ' had the real answers but were being deliberately suppressed which is complete nonsense as are their journals and taken seriously by no one but creationists , sadly you post up the writings of a young earth creationist as your only counter .
Your banning of the person in question was never addressed in the thread and the debate up to then showed no insults aimed at you , your claim of private messages being relayed to you is a claim you make without evidence.
The cowardly manner I'm referring too is the way you bring me into your post with Sean instead of airing the matter to me here like you've just done .
I told you and others here if you engage fairly I will also the problem in our last encounter was a deliberately insulting remark you aimed at me and then denied , I posted it up the other day and yet you still play the victim card .
Lich, I appreciate the sentiment, and I agree. But I do think we are going around in circles a bit here. If you genuinely want to consider evolution (it IS the reality of how the divergence of life happened), then start, please, by doing your own research and reading genuine scientific articles backed up by evidence and experiment.
Here are some sources to get you started:
An Index to Creationist's Claims (a lengthy list of rebuttals to claims made by creationists, with works cited at the bottom of each page, along with linkage to other resources and information to back up the rebuttals). http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Feel free to carry on, if you have an interest in the topic. I would also suggest learning about DNA and how it is structured, and how complexity in coding means that mass-meiosis inevitably leads to altered code.
There is a sheer insurmountable mountain of evidence and studies and experiments that validate evolution by natural selection, if only you allow yourself to look.
There are no proofs of Evolution. It's a theory monopolized by the Secular part of the West and pushed at all costs. Now they have to cover up, and slide all things that counter it or make it look stupid under the rug. Darwinism has become a cult.
So then the Theory of Evolution says that a species will continue to evolve to meet it surroundings. Then tell me why a species evolved into a human that had to kill other apes and animals to take the fur to protect themselves from the elements when they had that to start with ?
Are you talking about the myth that this proves that humans once had tails? For your information the coccyx is essential for our ability to remain upright. Take a look at how many muscles are attached to it, including the stomach muscles. Without it, we could not stand upright. You also wouldn't be able to take a shit without it.
Your listed functions of the the coccyx are indeed correct, but your narrative is only the ''tail end' of the story.
Your recent forefathers didn't have a tail but if you study the evolution of life on earth you will find your very distant ancestors did.
Other mammals find their tails useful for balance but when humans became upright and learned to walk the tail became useless and evolution condensed it to just some fused vertebrae called a coccyx/tailbone.
This vestigial bone (or number of bones) structure does assist in all the functions and in the way you described but this doesn't in anyway detract from the reality that it is a remnant of our distant cousins.
But hey, keep it coming if you wish, but I've finished, we can't have the tail wagging the dog. Adios, cheerio, chin chin and bye bye.
I don't have a science degree. But I can read and understand what other scientists say. And there are plenty of scientists who don't agree with evolution.
Wouldn't do any good. There are many respected scientists who don't believe in evolution. Look them up yourself. You would, if you were open minded, but you aren't.
Your supporting evidence is a (incorrect) diagram from a devout Christian's blog. That's not supporting evidence of anything except your own stupidity.
Not really. I provided you links from secular sources about the claims by Darwinists in regards to whale evolution. You failed to address them. That's called a "dodge".
It's overly simplistic, to the point of being fallacy of reduction.
Evolution doesn't happen in the cartoonish way the picture describes. It is a painfully slow process. A specimen mutates, ever so slightly, and if that mutation is beneficial (which most of the time it is not), then that species will survive and breed and pass on its mutation to its progeny. If, down the line, one of the progeny develop a mutation that is beneficial, it will pass that mutation on, until we have distinctly seperate lineages with separate physical characteristics. Brown eyes, blue eyes, green eyes, red hair, blonde hair, bigger skeletons, smaller skeletons, slanted eyes, dark or light skin, hooked noses, larger muscles, more nimble joints, greater bone density, better resistance to cold, hyperactive sweat glands, these are all mutational differences in humans, brought about by evolution by natural selection.
It is the reason why a black man will survive far easier in the deserts than a white man: the white man's skin will literally burn, bleed and peel off if he is not protected by sun-screen or shade. The same way, a black man's bone density and sweat production make him more susceptible to cold. These are evolutionary adaptations that happened over very, very long periods of time.
Which is a refutation of creatures caught in amber which are "hundreds of millions of years old" that still look the way they do today. I don't believe in Darwinism BECAUSE I have seen their demonstrations.
creatures that existed hundreds of millions of years ago can still exist today. Evolutionary theory doesn't say they can't. Lemprey's are found as far back as 360 million years ago. Evolution does not say that all organisms evolve at the same rate, nor does it say that an organism who has found an evolutionary niche 360 million years ago, can't still occupy that same niche, in the right conditions.
A exists.
One specimen of A develops part B.
A and (A+B) exist.
One specimen of A develops C, while one specimen of A+B develops D.
If a wasp doesn't change in hundreds of millions of years, why would I think ooze could take one trillion intermediary steps to get to a human being....
And by this logic, what we have proof of is that a creature can go unchanged for hundreds of millions of years. What we cannot see is a billion theoretical intermediary changes from ooze to human.
What you describe are adaptation, not evolution. No mutation is involved. It's all in our genetic code. No new information is ever added. It is simply the expression of genetic traits that already exist.
Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942. http://mbe.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf
Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments. http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/ 2002/Feb02/r022802b.html
You are right. 25 pound hooved hyenas turning into 80,000 pound whales is hard to understand. Nose to blowhole, gain 80,000 pounds, fur to blubber, small scrawny legs to pectoral fins, new fluked tail, a plethera of new teeth, completely different inner body systems, ability to survive in salt water, desire to eat plankton.... from something that looked like a small dog name ... Bambi... apparently...
But, the alternative is way more ridiculous. All of the species that are similar to each other existed at the same time, but only formed fossils in an order that leads to the transition from one to the other.
So, I am currently not being trolled by you. Can you give a hint at what you are trying to troll me with? What you are saying now isn't troll worthy at all.
The geologic column is a myth. It is based on a composite of many rock strata across the globe. The problem is that there is no uniformity of these layers. Certain species are even found in different rock layers, depending on what continent they were discovered on. In other words, they appear out of order. One species appearing before or after they supposedly existed. But you go right ahead and cling to you little myth.
Correction. It's the view of the ATHEIST scientific community. There are many scientists who have a problem with it. In fact there is a petition that was signed by hundreds of scientists stating that they do not believe that the evidence supports evolution through gradual change. BTW, not all scientists who disagree are Christian, or even religious.
Interesting. I made no mention of God and suddenly the religious guy invokes Him to claim He isn't involved with science. Why is it that theists are the quickest to believe that God can't be involved with science?
I would make a counter argument to your argument, but you didn't make one.
I did not invoke God. I merely stated that many non religious scientists do not believe that the theory of evolution accounts for all observable data. And what are you still doing here? Bye.
Plenty of evolutionary biologists are religious: that doesn't make evolution untrue. A majority are probably atheists, but that doesn't make evolution untrue either. If most evolutionary biologists are atheist, it will be because of evolutionary theory and what it tells us about the creation myth, not the other way around. People don't pursue evolutionary biology to spite the mythical God, they do it because it interests them. Evolutionary theory is also not based on a lack of belief in God or derived from a desire to disprove God; it is based on scientific study of physical evidence.
If evolution is an anti-religious movement and nothing more, then explain to me how it was that Charles Darwin, a devout Christian who set out to discover the secrets of the creation myth, ended up discovering evolution by natural selection?
That would be like asking a blind man what he thinks of that beautiful sunset. I have never seen one "fact" of ANY kind that PROVES a god exists. So, you believe what you think, I'll believe what I wish to believe. We'll have no problem as long as you don't expect me to live by your rules ... meaning don't try to make LAWS that are against the separation of church and state.
People believe in Santa Claus, I have no problem with that, I remember when I did. Santa only ASKED that we be good, he never forced anything on us, he never was the cause of hate, or a war, there was never a fight about whether he was Santa or St. Nicholas. The religious have fought about their "no facts god" for centuries. I don't believe in Santa any more, but if I did, that's the kind of "god" I could follow, not one that evokes hate because he left nothing but confusion for his "supporters". The theory of evolution causes no wars, the theory of a god always has.
Separation of Church and State? Where was that mentioned in the Constitution? All it says is that Congress shall pass no law concerning religion. That's all it says. So, where is the separation of Church and State mentioned?
You gave the answer to your own question. Had EVERY point needed to be spelled out for those who can't understand what something MEANS, the Constitution would have had to be a larger BOOK, not a few pages or a pamphlet. The INTENTION of that sentence was further clarified (You know, "clarified"? That which every word spoken by THIS President has to go through, either within the hour or certainly by the next press conference!) Anyway, the man known as "The Father of our Constitution" James Madison, explained it this way for those with little understanding.
"The purpose of the separation of church and state" (certainly showing intent), "is to keep, forever from these shores, the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
Today, he would probably include places like the middle east where religions "soak the soil" in blood, and have for centuries! Religion and politics mix like oil and water, THEY knew this from their own experience with The Church of England, the Vatican and other religious groups! You can NOT have a free country under ANY religious rule! Never has happened, never will!
Another founding father saw religion as to dangerous to rule when he said: "We discover, in the Gospels, a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication." [Thomas Jefferson], Obviously, (to those of us who have the freedom to understand .... unencumbered by a religion), few of the founding fathers wanted that kind of influence in the government after what they had gone through in Europe and Britain. Capeesh?? (Pardon my Italian spelling).
The intent of the First Amendment was to protect us from a government sponsored religion. It was also intended to prevent the government from meddling in any religion. It was NOT intended to remove religion from government. Just the misuse of religion by government. Some believe that religion should have no influence whatsoever in government. This is not true. It is religion, and the free exercise thereof, that needs to be protected from the government.
So.....YOU know more than James Madison and Thomas Jefferson .......interesting. I could go on to John Adams who said: " The Government of the United States is NOT, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion." I know of no scenarios where the government is "meddling in any religion", except where they block said religion from "meddling in the government". I know of no scenarios where the government prevents the "free exercise thereof", except, again, where said religion oversteps its bounds. It makes no difference to the government WHICH religion it is, Christian, Islam, Jewish, either ... as it should be. Misuse of religion BY the government?? The government does NOT misuse religion except when people like Trump get elected.
It is well to remember the words of a respected Law Professor, Jamie Raskin when he was addressing a certain conservative Senator: "Senator, when you took the oath of office you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the CONSTITUTION! You did NOT place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible! See how the government AND the law PROTECTS the GOVERNMENT from a religion? YOUR arguments ARE un-Constitutional, this IS true!
Does it hurt to be that stupid? I really curious. It must hurt. Do you take prescription painkillers for it? Maybe you're addicted to them? That would explain a lot.
The remains of living organisms are indeed used to make fossil fuels. I don't see how this has anything to do with my earlier statement about evolution though.
And most of those fossil fuels came from plant life that was buried during the flood. The amount of crude oil found in reservoirs is inconstant with the number of dead critters that would have been required to have died and been buried. Keep in mind that fossil fuels are all underground. How did that many critters die in the same place, at the same time? Only a global flood can explain it.
Fossils show similar bone structures of animals that are now evolved. When assembled, they show a slow evolutionary change. To adapt to different environments, evolution takes place. They do in fact support the theory of evolution.
Sheesh, mates. When does this nonsense end? Just what this sodding site needs..Another creationist wanker with his noggin so far up his arse he can't see all the countless facts of evolution.
OK..You asked for one?
Too easy.
I'll bloody give you fifteen. And then give you more when you ask.
But please read the link. Nothing worse than a good who asks for facts then doesn't read the freaking link.
There was not a single shred of scientific evidence in what you posted. Only arguments about others claims that were not backed up by any scientific data. Is that the best you can do? It's laughable.
Jesus H Christ on a popsicle stick....You're hopeless. That article had tons of facts. Do you not even know that in science a theory is comprised of proven facts? Look it up. And how the word is different in science than when you use it in normal conversation.
Meanwhile, I gave you fifteen. Now here are five more. If you cannot grasp these, then your lack of science knowledge is do poor that you're not worth arguing with.
OK, genius. How do you explain orphan genes? A theory must account for all observable data, or it is not valid. If one thing contradicts it, it is no longer a valid theory. So, explain orphan genes to us.
Orphan genes are incorrectly named. Scientists and geneticists no longer even use the term, since we have identified the synthesis methodology for them, and the proteins responsible for their existence.
Antibiotics kill bacteria.. You probably take them under your doctors orders.. I suspect you can't connect antibiotics with evolution, but I can't help that.
Actually he very fact that both viruses and bacteria mutate and evolve are current day very visible examples of the evolutionary process. All things in nature either adapt and evolve or they perish.
Not really. Changing from a bacteria into... a bacteria isn't Darwinian Theory. Wasps (trapped in amber) didn't evolve over "hundreds of millions of years".
Supporting Evidence:
Wasp in amber
(ykonline.yksd.com)
Bacteria do not evolve. The reason they become resistant is because they have lost the ability to ingest whatever worked on them before. So, it's actually devolution. They have, literally, lost the abilty to do something that they could do before. That is NOT evolution.
Survival of the fittest isn't darwinism. If we had 40 people, 20 black and twenty white, and all twenty whites died, people from now on would be black... and there would still be no "non-people".
There are many. Even those that don't believe in evolution (almost exclusively those with religioue motives?) could tell you a handful of facts that support it. It is a matter of knowledge.
I've seen every Biology presentation imaginable. If I hadn't only then might I buy it. They smirk and look unsure about half of what they say in these presentations. You have faith because you haven't actually read what your holy book says.
By presentation I guess you mean YouTube video. Evolution is scientific fact. I'm not going to link you to things you have already been taught. Tell me what facts you doubt.
Evolution and Darwinism are not the same thing nor the same concept. One is a fact. One is theoretical food for laughter. It is clear by the context that this thread was meant to be about Darwinism.
Are you referring to those fossils that still had soft tissue in them? LOL! Some of the excuses atheists come up with to dispute that. It's hilarious! My favourite is when they say that Iron in the blood preserved them for all those MILLIONS of years. Like, anyone with a brain is going to believe that. The simple fact remains that soft tissue cannot last for millions of years. It's a scientific impossibility.
Yep. The theories are like if you found a mountain made of glass that had broken into 100 trillion pieces and tried to put it back together, and when you presented it, it wasn't in the shape of the original mountain and looked like a handicapped swan. Your audience and you would be looking at each other like... uh......
Ok, I got another one... The BEDROCK of biology is evolution. The CORNERSTONE of medicine is biology.. You probably seek medical help now and then.. Did you know that it's evolution at work?
I wasn't aware that Darwinian Evolution is a prerequisite to the science of biology itself. I guess Vesalius, Hooke, and everyone who came after just sat around, twiddling their thumbs, until Darwin came along.
Belief in evolution is required for absolutely no scientific endeavor, it is completely useless and unnecessary for biology and is counter-productive to advancement of science as it teaches students and proponents to waste so much time trying to twist interpretation of data to fit belief in evolution.
Evolutionary belief often calls for a halt of scientific inquiry by declaring things such as "junk DNA or "vestigial traits" to be "proofs" of evolution. Thankfully, groups of scientists both atheistic/evolutionary and theistic and even born-again Bible believing Christians worked together studying what was so long called "junk DNA" and began to get some understanding of the function of what the mainstream educational system preferred to be ignorant of once they declared "junk DNA" proves evolution.
Evolution is anti-scientific as it is a philosophical/religious belief system which is not supported by real science but rather is contradicted in all points by real science.
Bacteria adaptations are simply the survival of the fittest, not darwinism. In tests of this nature, the original bacteria that was killed off comes back and becomes the survivor. That's a full proof that it isn't darwinism. It's a species variation, like short vs tall people. If only tall people could survive an environment, the only survivors would be tall. But short people would come back and in another environment condusive to being short, only short people would survive. Still humans in both cases.
Plus pretty much every scrap of evidence about evolution is already 10 fold more convincing than the myths retold by Bronze Age cultures about a superdude with magic powers.
Let me ask this, more for curiosity. What is the purpose of the Appendix, the wisdom tooth, the tail bone and any other vestiges in human anatomy? Why would a completely flightless bird have wings?
They are part of the body we no longer use, we have evolved beyond their original purpose. Or do you have another idea on that.
There are no such things as vestigial organs. Just like there is no junk DNA. These are lies, promoted by those who are trying to shore up a hopeless 'theory'. But since you asked, I'll answer one of those. The appendix plays an important role in digestion. If someone has a high fever, it can kill off the bacteria in their digestive tract. The appendix has a back-up supply of these bacteria, that is released once the fever has passed. There you go. You learned something new today.
There are no such things as vestigial organs. Just like there is no junk DNA. These are lies, promoted by those who are trying to shore up a hopeless 'theory
That right there tells me all I need to know about you.
And your reply tells ME all I need to know about YOU. It had nothing of substance. Did you, by any chance, read what I posted about the appendix. It does have a very important function. Do you know what it is? I'm thinking you don't. So why don't you do a little research on that? You might learn something. You might also want to read up on junk DNA. Turns out that they are constantly discovering how important "junk" DNA is. Because it does have a purpose. We simply don't know what all of it does yet. Funny, that scientists, who are suppose to search for the truth, accepted their own ignorance about something, in order to promote their agenda.