No Evidence for Evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 06:46 PM by Stevil.)
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  For it to be considered science it must be observable and testable through experimentation.
There are two main aspects to evolution:
1. Decent with modification
2. Natural selection

Regarding 1
- Decent (meaning inheritance)
is supported by the observation of inherited chromosomes within the DNA of offspring. It is observed that half the chromosomes come from the male contributor and half come from the female contributor (in humans).
- modification (random mutations)
is supported by the observation of inherited chromosomes sometimes including differences from the original source e.g. Down Syndrome.
Experimentally this has been supported by study of bacteria in the lab, evolving the ability to digest alternative food sources.
Outside the lab it has been observed that bacteria and germs are developing new resistence to common anti-biotics. Also the fact that while you can catch a cold once you then become immune to that cold because your bodies immunsystem remembers the disease, however the cold virus mutates and your body can then catch it again.
Regarding 2.
Natural Selection (non random)
This is the non random aspect, where those best suited to survive in the environment do so and propogate their genes.
For example the slow Cheetas don't catch the fast antelope, those slow ones die off so the slow genes don't propogate. But the fast Cheetas get the food, get laid and have fast offspring.
(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Who has actually seen evolution happen with their own eyes?
You have no doubt noticed the commonalities of offspring with regards to their parents.
You have no doubt seen offspring with genetic mutations.
You have no doubt seen that some offspring are better suited to their environments, better able to survive and reproduce and propogate their successful genes.

(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Who has actually observed a change in kinds?
Kinds isn't a scientific term, I thought we are evaluating evolution against a science base.
A couple things for you to investigate:
Ring species
Placenta mammals vs marsupials (why marsupials were predominant in Australia, why only birds and bats were native to NZ, Why NZ birds were often bigger and flightless?)
Why mammals that live in the ocean have lungs and tails that move up and down rather than side to side.
(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Who has actually replicated evolution through experimentation?
Richard Lenski -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment
John Endler -> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...elab.shtml
There have been many, many others.

Anyway, there are some great books in your library on the topic of evidence for evolution. Time for a visit, if you are genuine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Stevil's post
18-05-2015, 06:57 PM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 06:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  For it to be considered science it must be observable and testable through experimentation.
There are two main aspects to evolution:
1. Decent with modification
2. Natural selection

Regarding 1
- Decent (meaning inheritance)
is supported by the observation of inherited chromosomes within the DNA of offspring. It is observed that half the chromosomes come from the male contributor and half come from the female contributor (in humans).
- modification (random mutations)
is supported by the observation of inherited chromosomes sometimes including differences from the original source e.g. Down Syndrome.
Experimentally this has been supported by study of bacteria in the lab, evolving the ability to digest alternative food sources.
Outside the lab it has been observed that bacteria and germs are developing new resistence to common anti-biotics. Also the fact that while you can catch a cold once you then become immune to that cold because your bodies immunsystem remembers the disease, however the cold virus mutates and your body can then catch it again.
Regarding 2.
Natural Selection (non random)
This is the non random aspect, where those best suited to survive in the environment do so and propogate their genes.
For example the slow Cheetas don't catch the fast antelope, those slow ones die off so the slow genes don't propogate. But the fast Cheetas get the food, get laid and have fast offspring.
(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Who has actually seen evolution happen with their own eyes?
You have no doubt noticed the commonalities of offspring with regards to their parents.
You have no doubt seen offspring with genetic mutations.
You have no doubt seen that some offspring are better suited to their environments, better able to survive and reproduce and propogate their successful genes.

(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Who has actually observed a change in kinds?
Kinds isn't a scientific term, I thought we are evaluating evolution against a science base.
A couple things for you to investigate:
Ring species
Placenta mammals vs marsupials (why marsupials were predominant in Australia, why only birds and bats were native to NZ, Why NZ birds were often bigger and flightless?)
Why mammals that live in the ocean have lungs and tails that move up and down rather than side to side.
(18-05-2015 06:14 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Who has actually replicated evolution through experimentation?
Richard Lenski -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment
John Endler -> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...elab.shtml
There have been many, many others.

Anyway, there are some great books in your library on the topic of evidence for evolution. Time for a visit, if you are genuine.

Would you care to share this information as a comment on the youtube video?

https://youtu.be/MUa8lXyIwFE

I would very much like to see a debate between the Atheists on here and the youtube video uploader.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 07:48 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 07:51 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 06:57 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Would you care to share this information as a comment on the youtube video?

I am not signed into Youtube at al. All I can be of Youtube is a passive viewer. So, perhaps some one else might wish to go and converse with said channel?

(18-05-2015 06:57 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  https://youtu.be/MUa8lXyIwFE

I would very much like to see a debate between the Atheists on here and the youtube video uploader.

Currently, due to work being done on my computer I have no sound card and so am unable to listen to the Youtube link.

Perhaps the creator of said link might wish to sign up to the boards here and engage in a discussion?

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 08:23 PM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 08:40 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
Evolution is demonstrated and observed in millions of medical labs the world over, every say. Bacteria are cultured and their evolving resistance to antibiotics is documented thousands of times a day. Debating Evolution in 2015 is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Every single university in the entire world teaches it, and all of medical science and genetics works every day based on it's veracity. Only ignorant fools question it in 2015.

The changes in DNA are observed every day in labs all over the world.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
18-05-2015, 09:17 PM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 06:57 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  I would very much like to see a debate between the Atheists on here and the youtube video uploader.
The debate was resolved in a court of law in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial in 2005.


The Christian judge adjudicated that ID/Creationism wasn't science and doesn't qualify to be taught in the classroom, but however, that evolution is science and is qualified to be taught.
The case wasn't about whether god exists or not, it wasn't about whether evolution is true or not, it wasn't about whether god created life forms fully formed. The case was about what classifies as science.
The ID/Creationists that bothered to testify in court (many realised quickly they didn't have a case and failed to turn up in court) left with the understanding that they would need to redefine science in order to get their ID/Creationist ideas included.
According to The Wedge document http://ncse.com/creationism/general/wedge-document Their 5 goal (starting in 1998) was to publish "One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows" however they haven't been able to produce any scientific or academic papers meeting scientific criteria enough to pass the peer review criteria and to be published by a reputable scientific journal.

There really is no value for me to "debate" with random creationists online regarding a YouTube clip. They don't understand what science is, they don't understand what evolution is, they think that if they can point to a gap in scientific knowledge then that is proof that their particular god did it. These people have no interest in science, they tend to be proud of being naive, they seem to think that having faith despite the evidence to the contrary is something that they will be rewarded for in heaven.
If you are interested in the evidence for evolution then go to your library, read up on evolution, discover what it means, then read up on the books by the anti-evolutionists, then read up on the books by the people addressing the anti-evolutionists points.
Educate yourself, decide for yourself.
Evolution is a fascinating topic, don't be scared of it, it doesn't prove that god doesn't exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Stevil's post
18-05-2015, 09:35 PM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 06:04 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 05:17 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Link removed.

Please try harder. Throwing up a 'Ray Comfort Is Too Stupid To Understand Evolution But Argues Against It Anyway' vid on your first post... Nah.


Huh

Ray Comfort?
What is that?

Well in the video
The Scientific Method was defined as
"The collection of data through observation and experimentation"

Evolution occurs over millions of years

So evolution can't really directly be observed.

Nor is it a process that can be repeated through experimentation

So if it can't be observed and it can't be repeated through experiment

Then how is evolution science?

I just wanted to know what the response of other Atheists would be

And

I also welcome Atheists to post their ideas and thoughts as comments on that youtube video

ME PERSONALLY?

I'm theist in terms of God
I'm Agnostic when it comes to Creation and Evolution

You and the youtuber should read an actual science book then we can talk. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-05-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
Aw man...
Why do all the chew toys come about when I'm busy at uni...

Sloppy 20ths are no fun...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
19-05-2015, 04:41 AM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 08:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Evolution is demonstrated and observed in millions of medical labs the world over, every say. Bacteria are cultured and their evolving resistance to antibiotics is documented thousands of times a day. Debating Evolution in 2015 is like debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Every single university in the entire world teaches it, and all of medical science and genetics works every day based on it's veracity. Only ignorant fools question it in 2015.

The changes in DNA are observed every day in labs all over the world.

Yep this ^^^^

And also viruses which evolve and mutate which is the reason we always need to update vaccines.

Viruses and Evolution

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Eva's post
19-05-2015, 04:48 AM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 05:17 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  Link removed.

Please try harder. Throwing up a 'Ray Comfort Is Too Stupid To Understand Evolution But Argues Against It Anyway' vid on your first post... Nah.


Huh

https://youtu.be/MUa8lXyIwFE

Hey dickwad, when admin removed a link, editing to put it back in is somewhat rude, dontcha think? Somewhat spammy?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
19-05-2015, 05:26 AM
RE: No Evidence for Evolution?
(18-05-2015 06:57 PM)ShenHz Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 06:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  There are two main aspects to evolution:
1. Decent with modification
2. Natural selection

Regarding 1
- Decent (meaning inheritance)
is supported by the observation of inherited chromosomes within the DNA of offspring. It is observed that half the chromosomes come from the male contributor and half come from the female contributor (in humans).
- modification (random mutations)
is supported by the observation of inherited chromosomes sometimes including differences from the original source e.g. Down Syndrome.
Experimentally this has been supported by study of bacteria in the lab, evolving the ability to digest alternative food sources.
Outside the lab it has been observed that bacteria and germs are developing new resistence to common anti-biotics. Also the fact that while you can catch a cold once you then become immune to that cold because your bodies immunsystem remembers the disease, however the cold virus mutates and your body can then catch it again.
Regarding 2.
Natural Selection (non random)
This is the non random aspect, where those best suited to survive in the environment do so and propogate their genes.
For example the slow Cheetas don't catch the fast antelope, those slow ones die off so the slow genes don't propogate. But the fast Cheetas get the food, get laid and have fast offspring.
You have no doubt noticed the commonalities of offspring with regards to their parents.
You have no doubt seen offspring with genetic mutations.
You have no doubt seen that some offspring are better suited to their environments, better able to survive and reproduce and propogate their successful genes.

Kinds isn't a scientific term, I thought we are evaluating evolution against a science base.
A couple things for you to investigate:
Ring species
Placenta mammals vs marsupials (why marsupials were predominant in Australia, why only birds and bats were native to NZ, Why NZ birds were often bigger and flightless?)
Why mammals that live in the ocean have lungs and tails that move up and down rather than side to side.
Richard Lenski -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...experiment
John Endler -> http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...elab.shtml
There have been many, many others.

Anyway, there are some great books in your library on the topic of evidence for evolution. Time for a visit, if you are genuine.

Would you care to share this information as a comment on the youtube video?

https://youtu.be/MUa8lXyIwFE

I would very much like to see a debate between the Atheists on here and the youtube video uploader.

Then you should invite the ignorant but opinionated youtuber to join us. We'll await his arrival with rapt anticipation. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: