[split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-07-2013, 11:31 PM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2013 11:46 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
He got run over by the sea shells walking up the mountain to fool us into thinking Noah and the flood were true.
He actually is lurking here, on a daily basis.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 11:35 PM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(23-07-2013 11:09 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 08:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  He was outed as being Kirk Cameron and got skeered.

Nah. N-word is smarter than Kirk Cameron. Drinking Beverage

:Well that's not saying much. Tongue


God is a concept by which we measure our pain -- John Lennon

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2013, 11:38 PM
[split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(23-07-2013 11:35 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 11:09 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Nah. N-word is smarter than Kirk Cameron. Drinking Beverage

:Well that's not saying much. Tongue

Zactly. Hobo

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
24-07-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(22-07-2013 11:14 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Hey N-word, that's a pretty fun little game you've got there. IF you know anything about evolution, you know it cannot be proven in one internet post. You know it takes pages of scientific literature, documents, DNA readings, comparisons of fossils, geology, and so on. You also know the average person does not have all of this information in their head so all they (we) can do is provide sources for you to study. But you don't want sources. You want us to show you proof. Again, something difficult to do in one internet post. Where did you learn this tactic? Standtoreason.org? CARM.org? Answersingenesis.org? Wherever you came up with it, it is a fun tactic to use, but really it is of no value to a conversation about lengthy, scientific topics. But this way of thinking, though fallacious, is the way you're used to thinking.
Example:
Question: How do you know there is a God?
Answer: For the Bible tells me so.
Question: How do you know the Bible is true?
Answer: God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Should you be faulted for doing so? Well, you are a product of your narrow minded upbringing, but shame on you for not expanding your thinking.

But, with all that in mind, you've asked for proof and I'm not going to shy away from giving it to you. Nor shall I give you a link that you will not click or a book recommendation that you will not read, nor a video that you will not watch.

Ready?
Begin:

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

I look forward to your entertaining non-rebuttal. Big Grin
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
Answer: DNA can also prove the existence of God. If God created everything unique and individually, then everything would have its own DNA.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Answer: This does not prove evolution. It actually opens up a can of worms in that arena because scientists are lacking a complete chain and only assuming there were other species to connect the fossils that have been discovered. The fossils are actually extinct animals and nothing more.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
Answer: This in no way proves evolution. It shows that a tiger, leopard, cheetah, to a house cat all have common characteristics. There is no proof that one evolved from the other. Secondly, all the animals you mentioned have a heart, lungs, a brain, ect… you would expect all of us to share some similar genetic makeup- like all plants- they have roots, ;leaves, ect…
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
Answer: Once again, you talk about life. Of course there are commonalities. This could easily show a creator. It does not prove evolution.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Answer: Natural selection does not prove evolution. Animals and plants adapt to their surroundings.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 08:40 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
Oh look Erx, you got a fan! Laughat

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
24-07-2013, 09:17 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  
(22-07-2013 11:14 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Hey N-word, that's a pretty fun little game you've got there. IF you know anything about evolution, you know it cannot be proven in one internet post. You know it takes pages of scientific literature, documents, DNA readings, comparisons of fossils, geology, and so on. You also know the average person does not have all of this information in their head so all they (we) can do is provide sources for you to study. But you don't want sources. You want us to show you proof. Again, something difficult to do in one internet post. Where did you learn this tactic? Standtoreason.org? CARM.org? Answersingenesis.org? Wherever you came up with it, it is a fun tactic to use, but really it is of no value to a conversation about lengthy, scientific topics. But this way of thinking, though fallacious, is the way you're used to thinking.
Example:
Question: How do you know there is a God?
Answer: For the Bible tells me so.
Question: How do you know the Bible is true?
Answer: God said it, I believe it, that settles it.
Should you be faulted for doing so? Well, you are a product of your narrow minded upbringing, but shame on you for not expanding your thinking.

But, with all that in mind, you've asked for proof and I'm not going to shy away from giving it to you. Nor shall I give you a link that you will not click or a book recommendation that you will not read, nor a video that you will not watch.

Ready?
Begin:

1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
{Links, books, videos available upon request.}

I look forward to your entertaining non-rebuttal. Big Grin
1. The universal genetic code. All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth. This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
Answer: DNA can also prove the existence of God. If God created everything unique and individually, then everything would have its own DNA.
2. The fossil record. The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
Answer: This does not prove evolution. It actually opens up a can of worms in that arena because scientists are lacking a complete chain and only assuming there were other species to connect the fossils that have been discovered. The fossils are actually extinct animals and nothing more.
3. Genetic commonalities. Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats, 80% with cows, 75% with mice, and so on. This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past. And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
Answer: This in no way proves evolution. It shows that a tiger, leopard, cheetah, to a house cat all have common characteristics. There is no proof that one evolved from the other. Secondly, all the animals you mentioned have a heart, lungs, a brain, ect… you would expect all of us to share some similar genetic makeup- like all plants- they have roots, ;leaves, ect…
4. Common traits in embryos. Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata. One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine. For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development. But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos. These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
Answer: Once again, you talk about life. Of course there are commonalities. This could easily show a creator. It does not prove evolution.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations. When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action. The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not.
Answer: Natural selection does not prove evolution. Animals and plants adapt to their surroundings.

You're delusional.

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ridethespiral's post
24-07-2013, 09:34 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
Sometimes I don't know why I bother. If overwhelming evidence hasn't convinced you yet, then you're either thick as a brick or proudly and willfully ignorant.

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  1. The universal genetic code...
Answer: DNA can also prove the existence of God. If God created everything unique and individually, then everything would have its own DNA.

If God created everything uniquely and individually, then everything would have its own DNA, eh? That must be why it doesn't...

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  2. The fossil record...
Answer: This does not prove evolution. It actually opens up a can of worms in that arena because scientists are lacking a complete chain and only assuming there were other species to connect the fossils that have been discovered. The fossils are actually extinct animals and nothing more.

I wonder why, then, that the sum total of the entire fossil record appears to indicate gradual and consistent adapatation and speciation, has produced evidence fitting prior hypotheses innumerable times, and has never produced as single fundamentally inconsistent piece of evidence?

Must be coincidence.

Let me give you an analogy for 'missing links', which are a) DEFINITELY not what you think they are, and b) not even a thing at all.

Two specimens must be sufficient distinct to be counted as different species. Let us consider a number line (that is, real numbers from 0 to 10). Each number is an individual - there is potentially a continuous spectrum of change. But species cannot be arbitrarily similar - let us say they must be separated by an integer's length. We find a 1, a 1.1, and a 0.92 as fossils. They all look pretty much the same, and so we declare them to be species "1". We also known of species "10", which is alive today. We think they might be related - but if so, there must be something in between. Like, say, a "5". We find fossils 4.7, 5.2, and 5.4. They are intermediate in many ways between "1" and "10", our existing classifications, and so we call them a new species "5". This is good enough evidence for most scientists.

Then an obstinate objector cries, "but what about this missing link? There's nothing between '5' and '10'!" Well, no. But scientists predict there was once a species which would probably look like "7". Eventually we find a couple 7.1s in the fossil record, and classify species "7". "But what about the missing link? There's nothing between '7' and '10'!" Well, but one day a prospecting paleontologist finds an "8". "There's nothing between '8' and '10'!" Unfortunately, that is true. We hypothesize a species "9", but its likely habitat and population are such that we might never find its fossils. But in the meantime we've found species "2.5", "4", and "6".

At this point the creationist says "'9' is the missing link, checkmate, atheists", and all competent scientists die a little inside.

The sampling rate of the fossil record is rather coarse, and combined with the low resolution of taxonomy, we will literally never fill in the entire real number line. But there's far more than enough evidence to conclude that it exists...

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  3. Genetic commonalities...
Answer: This in no way proves evolution. It shows that a tiger, leopard, cheetah, to a house cat all have common characteristics. There is no proof that one evolved from the other. Secondly, all the animals you mentioned have a heart, lungs, a brain, ect… you would expect all of us to share some similar genetic makeup- like all plants- they have roots, ;leaves, ect…

If common ancestry is true then such commonalities are inevitable and make perfect sense. If God created everything then it is lazy, careless design. Many organisms have profound inefficiencies and disadvantages. This makes perfect sense if they are inherited from their ancestors. Not so much if they are created to be 'perfect'.

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  4. Common traits in embryos...
Answer: Once again, you talk about life. Of course there are commonalities. This could easily show a creator. It does not prove evolution.

Again, this is either a perfectly logical outcome of common descent, or a fantastically poor 'design' a third-year biologist could top.

If everything were created separately then there is no 'of course' about it.

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics...
Answer: Natural selection does not prove evolution. Animals and plants adapt to their surroundings.

And finally you speak a tiny grain of sense. You accept natural selection. That is one of the three prerequisites for evolution. I put it to you that you cannot deny the others without being the aforementioned sublimely idiotic or deliriously obtuse.

Selection - not all individuals within a population are equally likely to survive and reproduce. This is due to:

Variation - not all individuals within a population are the same. This causes some to be more well adapted than others. Variation is propagated by the effects of:

Heredity - the variation between individuals is passed on to their offspring. An individual who is more likely to survive will have offspring which are more likely to survive.

The net effect of all three principles (blindingly obvious and completely undeniable principles, mind) is that the compositions of populations of individuals changes over time, due to the selection and heredity of naturally occurring variation. This is called evolution. Deal with it.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
24-07-2013, 10:08 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(24-07-2013 09:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Sometimes I don't know why I bother. If overwhelming evidence hasn't convinced you yet, then you're either thick as a brick or proudly and willfully ignorant.

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  1. The universal genetic code...
Answer: DNA can also prove the existence of God. If God created everything unique and individually, then everything would have its own DNA.

If God created everything uniquely and individually, then everything would have its own DNA, eh? That must be why it doesn't...

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  2. The fossil record...
Answer: This does not prove evolution. It actually opens up a can of worms in that arena because scientists are lacking a complete chain and only assuming there were other species to connect the fossils that have been discovered. The fossils are actually extinct animals and nothing more.

I wonder why, then, that the sum total of the entire fossil record appears to indicate gradual and consistent adapatation and speciation, has produced evidence fitting prior hypotheses innumerable times, and has never produced as single fundamentally inconsistent piece of evidence?

Must be coincidence.

Let me give you an analogy for 'missing links', which are a) DEFINITELY not what you think they are, and b) not even a thing at all.

Two specimens must be sufficient distinct to be counted as different species. Let us consider a number line (that is, real numbers from 0 to 10). Each number is an individual - there is potentially a continuous spectrum of change. But species cannot be arbitrarily similar - let us say they must be separated by an integer's length. We find a 1, a 1.1, and a 0.92 as fossils. They all look pretty much the same, and so we declare them to be species "1". We also known of species "10", which is alive today. We think they might be related - but if so, there must be something in between. Like, say, a "5". We find fossils 4.7, 5.2, and 5.4. They are intermediate in many ways between "1" and "10", our existing classifications, and so we call them a new species "5". This is good enough evidence for most scientists.

Then an obstinate objector cries, "but what about this missing link? There's nothing between '5' and '10'!" Well, no. But scientists predict there was once a species which would probably look like "7". Eventually we find a couple 7.1s in the fossil record, and classify species "7". "But what about the missing link? There's nothing between '7' and '10'!" Well, but one day a prospecting paleontologist finds an "8". "There's nothing between '8' and '10'!" Unfortunately, that is true. We hypothesize a species "9", but its likely habitat and population are such that we might never find its fossils. But in the meantime we've found species "2.5", "4", and "6".

At this point the creationist says "'9' is the missing link, checkmate, atheists", and all competent scientists die a little inside.

The sampling rate of the fossil record is rather coarse, and combined with the low resolution of taxonomy, we will literally never fill in the entire real number line. But there's far more than enough evidence to conclude that it exists...

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  3. Genetic commonalities...
Answer: This in no way proves evolution. It shows that a tiger, leopard, cheetah, to a house cat all have common characteristics. There is no proof that one evolved from the other. Secondly, all the animals you mentioned have a heart, lungs, a brain, ect… you would expect all of us to share some similar genetic makeup- like all plants- they have roots, ;leaves, ect…

If common ancestry is true then such commonalities are inevitable and make perfect sense. If God created everything then it is lazy, careless design. Many organisms have profound inefficiencies and disadvantages. This makes perfect sense if they are inherited from their ancestors. Not so much if they are created to be 'perfect'.

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  4. Common traits in embryos...
Answer: Once again, you talk about life. Of course there are commonalities. This could easily show a creator. It does not prove evolution.

Again, this is either a perfectly logical outcome of common descent, or a fantastically poor 'design' a third-year biologist could top.

If everything were created separately then there is no 'of course' about it.

(24-07-2013 08:30 AM)theword Wrote:  5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics...
Answer: Natural selection does not prove evolution. Animals and plants adapt to their surroundings.

And finally you speak a tiny grain of sense. You accept natural selection. That is one of the three prerequisites for evolution. I put it to you that you cannot deny the others without being the aforementioned sublimely idiotic or deliriously obtuse.

Selection - not all individuals within a population are equally likely to survive and reproduce. This is due to:

Variation - not all individuals within a population are the same. This causes some to be more well adapted than others. Variation is propagated by the effects of:

Heredity - the variation between individuals is passed on to their offspring. An individual who is more likely to survive will have offspring which are more likely to survive.

The net effect of all three principles (blindingly obvious and completely undeniable principles, mind) is that the compositions of populations of individuals changes over time, due to the selection and heredity of naturally occurring variation. This is called evolution. Deal with it.
These are all your opinions, as evidence by saying "This is good enough evidence for most scientists." It still does not prove evolution... Keep trying my friend.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 10:11 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(24-07-2013 10:08 AM)theword Wrote:  These are all your opinions, as evidence by saying "This is good enough evidence for most scientists." It still does not prove evolution... Keep trying my friend.

Variation. Selection. Heredity.

Evolution.

Sorry, friend, but that's as proven as proof gets.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-07-2013, 10:13 AM
RE: [split] theword: says there is no proof of evolution
(24-07-2013 10:08 AM)theword Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 09:34 AM)cjlr Wrote:  Sometimes I don't know why I bother. If overwhelming evidence hasn't convinced you yet, then you're either thick as a brick or proudly and willfully ignorant.


If God created everything uniquely and individually, then everything would have its own DNA, eh? That must be why it doesn't...


I wonder why, then, that the sum total of the entire fossil record appears to indicate gradual and consistent adapatation and speciation, has produced evidence fitting prior hypotheses innumerable times, and has never produced as single fundamentally inconsistent piece of evidence?

Must be coincidence.

Let me give you an analogy for 'missing links', which are a) DEFINITELY not what you think they are, and b) not even a thing at all.

Two specimens must be sufficient distinct to be counted as different species. Let us consider a number line (that is, real numbers from 0 to 10). Each number is an individual - there is potentially a continuous spectrum of change. But species cannot be arbitrarily similar - let us say they must be separated by an integer's length. We find a 1, a 1.1, and a 0.92 as fossils. They all look pretty much the same, and so we declare them to be species "1". We also known of species "10", which is alive today. We think they might be related - but if so, there must be something in between. Like, say, a "5". We find fossils 4.7, 5.2, and 5.4. They are intermediate in many ways between "1" and "10", our existing classifications, and so we call them a new species "5". This is good enough evidence for most scientists.

Then an obstinate objector cries, "but what about this missing link? There's nothing between '5' and '10'!" Well, no. But scientists predict there was once a species which would probably look like "7". Eventually we find a couple 7.1s in the fossil record, and classify species "7". "But what about the missing link? There's nothing between '7' and '10'!" Well, but one day a prospecting paleontologist finds an "8". "There's nothing between '8' and '10'!" Unfortunately, that is true. We hypothesize a species "9", but its likely habitat and population are such that we might never find its fossils. But in the meantime we've found species "2.5", "4", and "6".

At this point the creationist says "'9' is the missing link, checkmate, atheists", and all competent scientists die a little inside.

The sampling rate of the fossil record is rather coarse, and combined with the low resolution of taxonomy, we will literally never fill in the entire real number line. But there's far more than enough evidence to conclude that it exists...


If common ancestry is true then such commonalities are inevitable and make perfect sense. If God created everything then it is lazy, careless design. Many organisms have profound inefficiencies and disadvantages. This makes perfect sense if they are inherited from their ancestors. Not so much if they are created to be 'perfect'.


Again, this is either a perfectly logical outcome of common descent, or a fantastically poor 'design' a third-year biologist could top.

If everything were created separately then there is no 'of course' about it.


And finally you speak a tiny grain of sense. You accept natural selection. That is one of the three prerequisites for evolution. I put it to you that you cannot deny the others without being the aforementioned sublimely idiotic or deliriously obtuse.

Selection - not all individuals within a population are equally likely to survive and reproduce. This is due to:

Variation - not all individuals within a population are the same. This causes some to be more well adapted than others. Variation is propagated by the effects of:

Heredity - the variation between individuals is passed on to their offspring. An individual who is more likely to survive will have offspring which are more likely to survive.

The net effect of all three principles (blindingly obvious and completely undeniable principles, mind) is that the compositions of populations of individuals changes over time, due to the selection and heredity of naturally occurring variation. This is called evolution. Deal with it.
These are all your opinions, as evidence by saying "This is good enough evidence for most scientists." It still does not prove evolution... Keep trying my friend.

Science, and intelligent people, rely on evidence. Proof occurs only in maths.

We have evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for god.

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: