ElCount:

These evolutionist know the truth but like someone rightfully said they are all indoctrinated militants spewing illogical statements without so much as a little scrutiny and tell you its science.
Ask an evolutionist and he/she will tell you Hitler's act of genocide for example was wrong. Then ask him/her based on evolution theory how do you know its wrong? Then watch as he/she gapes at you in a ridiculous manner.
If we all evolved from a rock (prebiotic soup) how then did we come to know that lying, murder, false witness etc is wrong?

In general how did we come to know what is right and what is wrong? Since we just evolved and are still evolving without purpose.

God has made the rules giving that he made the universe, he owns it therefore he makes the rules. But where the evolutionist have problem is that "if I break this rules what will happen"?
So they are like let's enjoy the rules we like and believe away the existence of God by making a dumb theory for ourselves.
Romans 1:21-- "Yes they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give Him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result their minds became dark and confused. Claiming to be wise they became utter fools."

.


Thank U bro. God bless U.

blueAgent:
.

Thank U bro. God bless U.

God bless you too

ElCount:
they are all indoctrinated militants spewing illogical statements without so much as a little scrutiny

...psychological projection of the highest order. How can you say this, given your stance on things? How can you genuinely believe atheists are the ones deserving of such labels, but not you? It is like, you took the precise statement that would apply to you and those who agree with you, and flipped it on the people it would least apply to. Masterful projection, I've never seen anything like this.

Applying critical thought to your beliefs then renouncing them is literally the reversal of indoctrination. Comparing modern scientific knowledge to the 2,000 year old Hebrew scripts you were read as a child and deciding the former made more sense, is the definition of using scrutiny. Moreover, there is nothing at all illogical about accepting the idea of "generations upon generations of environment-directed genetic change leading to new organisms over millions of years," over the idea that "an emotional, invisible, supernatural man who hates gay sex, used the power of his words to poof all of the different species on earth all at once, because he wanted to give humans stuff to rule over and eat. and also he drowned all those species later when people were having too much gay sex. even though he knew it would happen because he knows everything. but he was still pissed off."

Also, the following show that even after all of the discourse in this thread, my OP, and links/resources I provided, you still don't understand what evolution actually involves and need to read up more on this topic if you want to have even the slightest idea what you're talking about:

If we all evolved from a rock (prebiotic soup)...

Abiogenesis... not evolution. And rocks are not the same as prebiotic soup - different chemical constituents. Read up.

how then did we come to know that lying, murder, false witness etc is wrong

Altruism & kinship... is... observed... in thousands of other... nonhuman species... it confers survival benefit and is thus part of our DNA. Read up.

where the evolutionist have problem is that "if I break this rules what will happen"?
So they are like let's enjoy the rules we like and believe away the existence of God by making a dumb theory for ourselves.

Evolution is not a philosophy... it's a field of biological study concerned with how genetics and the environment interact to create species. There are christians who accept evolution, along with buddhists, taoists, jews, humanists, the list goes on. And not all atheists accept evolution or are even educated on it. Evolution =/= atheism or theism. Read up.

Thanks.

cloudgoddess:

...psychological projection of the highest order. How can you say this, given your stance on things? How can you genuinely believe atheists are the ones deserving of such labels, but not you? It is like, you took the precise statement that would apply to you and those who agree with you, and flipped it on the people it would least apply to. Masterful projection, I've never seen anything like this.

Applying critical thought to your beliefs then renouncing them is literally the reversal of indoctrination. Comparing modern scientific knowledge to the 2,000 year old Hebrew scripts you were read as a child and deciding the former made more sense, is the definition of using scrutiny. Moreover, there is nothing at all illogical about accepting the idea of "generations upon generations of environment-directed genetic change leading to new organisms over millions of years," over the idea that "an emotional, invisible, supernatural man who hates gay sex, used the power of his words to poof all of the different species on earth all at once, because he wanted to give humans stuff to rule over and eat. and also he drowned all those species later when people were having too much gay sex. even though he knew it would happen because he knows everything. but he was still pissed off."

Also, the following show that even after all of the discourse in this thread, my OP, and links/resources I provided, you still don't understand what evolution actually involves and need to read up more on this topic if you want to have even the slightest idea what you're talking about:

Abiogenesis... not evolution. And rocks are not the same as prebiotic soup - different chemical constituents. Read up.


Altruism & kinship... is... observed... in thousands of other... nonhuman species... it confers survival benefit and is thus part of our DNA. Read up.


Evolution is not a philosophy... it's a field of biological study concerned with how genetics and the environment interact to create species. There are christians who accept evolution, along with buddhists, taoists, jews, humanists, the list goes on. And not all atheists accept evolution or are even educated on it. Evolution =/= atheism or theism. Read up.

Thanks.

The label indoctrinated militant is apt. You consider your evolution theory as science even though it does not abide by the scientific method. Take for example the Newton's first law of motion, if I were to ask you for examples/evidence to support that law you will come up with an unending list without blinking just as you would be unable to come up with a scenario where the law does not hold, now that's the science I know, the science that we all appreciate. If there is to be so much as a gap in a scientific theory it will be dropped or suspended pending when the gap has been rectified. Same cannot be said about your evolution theory. (That's the scrutiny I was referring to)
I asked you some questions earlier and you avoided it like a plague for reasons best known to you, these are pertinent questions that should have made any scientists to drop/suspend the theory and seek for answers unless you are an indoctrinated militant.
My christian beliefs are based on religion and I never passed them off as science unlike the evolutionists, so whatever evidence you might require from me will bother on FAITH.

I don't know why the emphasis on gay, are you? Anyway

*If your parents were gay would you have existed?
*If all of mankind decides to be gay, what better definition would you give to extinction?
*If we were to go by your evolution theory, what if your ancestors turned out gay what would have become of the evolution process?

Its a shame that you should bring up altruism as an evidence of how we came to know right from wrong!
How then does altruism explain the fact that murder is okay among lower animals, but not okay among humans?
How does altruism explain the fact that rape among humans is bad but we can watch as a rooster rapes a hen and it will be just fine.
Altruism bothers on selflessness so why can't I comfortably kill someone to protect the interest of my friend after all I killed for him didn't I?

You look at a child and even without telling him/her anything the childs' first instinct would be to lie so as to avoid the punishment of the father/mother which is yet an evidence that evil is inherent in humans.


You talk about Abiogenesis, let me ask you this- Is Abiogenesis not the foundation upon which the evolution process was based?
Now Abiogenesis has no evidence yet it has been accepted by you lot. You guys said life came by accident and yet scientists have been unable to create a simple cell in a lab.
Let's look at an accident, take for instance a car accident.
At least I can come up with the conditions for a car accident to occur, namely: bad road, drunk driver, bad tire, disregard for traffic rules... etc, combine any of these conditions and you are certain that a car accident would occur.
Scientists can't recreate a simple cell neither can they come up with the conditions necessary for this accident called life to occur and yet you guys are trying to tell us that its science, sorry your evolution theory is a DUD

ElCount:

The label indoctrinated militant is apt. You consider your evolution theory as science even though it does not abide by the scientific method. Take for example the Newton's first law of motion, if I were to ask you for examples/evidence to support that law you will come up with an unending list without blinking just as you would be unable to come up with a scenario where the law does not hold, now that's the science I know, the science that we all appreciate. If there is to be so much as a gap in a scientific theory it will be dropped or suspended pending when the gap has been rectified. Same cannot be said about your evolution theory. (That's the scrutiny I was referring to)

I'm not quite sure you understand the scientific method as well as you think you do. Just a statement of fact based on what you've typed.

First, the theory of evolution most certainly abides by scientific principles. It's one of the foremost theories in science because of how deeply it's been subjected to scrutiny (and still is). Many examples to show evidence of evolution can be proferred. My favourite example is the genetic one: the incidence of shared endogenous retroviruses in humans and other apes.

Second, science doesn't work in the way you stated: "If there is to be so much as a gap in a scientific theory it will be dropped or suspended pending when the gap has been rectified". That's simply not true. In fact, going back to Newton, physicists knew the Newtonian law on gravity wasn't the right explanation for gravity. Although it worked in many instances, aberrations, like the orbit of Mercury, showed there were gaps and Newton was probably wrong to some extent. However, the theory sufficed until Einstein's theory centuries later. That's science. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the data we have concerning the evolution of populations.

I asked you some questions earlier and you avoided it like a plague for reasons best known to you, these are pertinent questions that should have made any scientists to drop/suspend the theory and seek for answers unless you are an indoctrinated militant.
My christian beliefs are based on religion and I never passed them off as science unlike the evolutionists, so whatever evidence you might require from me will bother on FAITH.
I don't know why the emphasis on gay, are you? Anyway
*If your parents were gay would you have existed?
*If all of mankind decides to be gay, what better definition would you give to extinction?
*If we were to go by your evolution theory, what if your ancestors turned out gay what would have become of the evolution process?

That's not how evolution works.

Its a shame that you should bring up altruism as an evidence of how we came to know right from wrong!
How then does altruism explain the fact that murder is okay among lower animals, but not okay among humans?

It's okay amongst some human societies (and some human individuals). You seem to be overlooking history and reality. Groups/tribes justify murder all the time, and since this is a religious forum, one need only look to religous texts to see favoured humans and their tribe justify the wholesale slaughter of other humans. That's plenty evidence to suggest societies have developed their ethics based on factors that are natural and physically explainable. Altruism can explain in-tribe kindness to foster cohesion. One can use the same methodology to explore the reverse against those considered outside of the tribe.

How does altruism explain the fact that rape among humans is bad but we can watch as a rooster rapes a hen and it will be just fine.

Pretty much the same as above. We of modern society know it's bad. Some humans don't. Many early human ancestors were willing to rape women (or in some religious texts, forcibly marry them before raping them) as spoils of war. They knew they were right.

Altruism bothers on selflessness so why can't I comfortably kill someone to protect the interest of my friend after all I killed for him didn't I?

That's a philosophical argument, nothing to do particularly with any science. However, you can. Our courts may find you guilty of a crime, though.

You look at a child and even without telling him/her anything the childs' first instinct would be to lie so as to avoid the punishment of the father/mother which is yet an evidence that evil is inherent in humans.

Or evidence of self-preservation.

You talk about Abiogenesis, let me ask you this- Is Abiogenesis not the foundation upon which the evolution process was based?

No. Two separate sciences. Life could have been started naturally or by a deity, it won't change the evidence that underpins the theory of evolution.

Now Abiogenesis has no evidence yet it has been accepted by you lot. You guys said life came by accident and yet scientists have been unable to create a simple cell in a lab.

Abiogenesis does have evidence, but considering how well this thread is going, I'm sure you're interested in the evidence for abiogenesis. In any case, why would you expect scientists to have created "a simple cell in a lab"? And if they have, will you accept it can happen naturally, or will you claim that shows life needs an intelligent creator?

Let's look at an accident, take for instance a car accident.
At least I can come up with the conditions for a car accident to occur, namely: bad road, drunk driver, bad tire, disregard for traffic rules... etc, combine any of these conditions and you are certain that a car accident would occur.
Scientists can't recreate a simple cell neither can they come up with the conditions necessary for this accident called life to occur and yet you guys are trying to tell us that its science, sorry your evolution theory is a DUD

I think best to ignore the rest of that, no? I haven't been around these parts in a while, but the M.O. hasn't changed all that much. Look, you're clearly a smart guy, so my advice will be to actually understand the theory of evolution before trying to argue against it. I don't think you know anything about the subject.

ElCount:

sorry your evolution theory is a DUD

Again, you've proved you're not knowledgable on it's basic points and refuse to learn, so you're in no place at all to make any judgment on it's validity.

What you're doing is the equivalent of me having not read a single book on astrophysics and then trying to spout that microwave radiation is made up. You're arguing from ignorance and it's making you look foolish.

I don't know why the emphasis on gay, are you? Anyway

*If your parents were gay would you have existed?
*If all of mankind decides to be gay, what better definition would you give to extinction?
*If we were to go by your evolution theory, what if your ancestors turned out gay what would have become of the evolution process?

Wow, the gay references really went over your head. Their purpose was to point out the ridiculousness of the idea that the creator of the entire universe and all of the millions of species on earth, would view homosexual behavior amongst a single primate species as a valid reason to destroy all life on the planet. It sounds eerily like something an egotistical man-baby with middle-eastern 1st century values would do. Certainly not an all-knowing, all-loving, infinitely understanding god.

KAG:


I'm not quite sure you understand the scientific method as well as you think you do. Just a statement of fact based on what you've typed.

First, the theory of evolution most certainly abides by scientific principles. It's one of the foremost theories in science because of how deeply it's been subjected to scrutiny (and still is). Many examples to show evidence of evolution can be proferred. My favourite example is the genetic one: the incidence of shared endogenous retroviruses in humans and other apes.

Second, science doesn't work in the way you stated: "If there is to be so much as a gap in a scientific theory it will be dropped or suspended pending when the gap has been rectified". That's simply not true. In fact, going back to Newton, physicists knew the Newtonian law on gravity wasn't the right explanation for gravity. Although it worked in many instances, aberrations, like the orbit of Mercury, showed there were gaps and Newton was probably wrong to some extent. However, the theory sufficed until Einstein's theory centuries later. That's science. The theory of evolution is the best explanation of the data we have concerning the evolution of populations.



That's not how evolution works.



It's okay amongst some human societies (and some human individuals). You seem to be overlooking history and reality. Groups/tribes justify murder all the time, and since this is a religious forum, one need only look to religous texts to see favoured humans and their tribe justify the wholesale slaughter of other humans. That's plenty evidence to suggest societies have developed their ethics based on factors that are natural and physically explainable. Altruism can explain in-tribe kindness to foster cohesion. One can use the same methodology to explore the reverse against those considered outside of the tribe.



Pretty much the same as above. We of modern society know it's bad. Some humans don't. Many early human ancestors were willing to rape women (or in some religious texts, forcibly marry them before raping them) as spoils of war. They knew they were right.



That's a philosophical argument, nothing to do particularly with any science. However, you can. Our courts may find you guilty of a crime, though.



Or evidence of self-preservation.



No. Two separate sciences. Life could have been started naturally or by a deity, it won't change the evidence that underpins the theory of evolution.



Abiogenesis does have evidence, but considering how well this thread is going, I'm sure you're interested in the evidence for abiogenesis. In any case, why would you expect scientists to have created "a simple cell in a lab"? And if they have, will you accept it can happen naturally, or will you claim that shows life needs an intelligent creator?



I think best to ignore the rest of that, no? I haven't been around these parts in a while, but the M.O. hasn't changed all that much. Look, you're clearly a smart guy, so my advice will be to actually understand the theory of evolution before trying to argue against it. I don't think you know anything about the subject.

For any theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable, can't say that about your evolution theory.
There's nothing scientific about the birds evolving from reptiles, nothing scientific about a plant cell becoming an animal cell just because you said it will happen in millions of years.

Your argument involving the Newtonian law of gravity bothers on Fallacy of accident. The fact that it was still used at the time doesn't justify it being the appropriate thing to do, besides you rightfully pointed out that it was true in some occasions.

Please the fact that similar processes occur in different animals doesn't mean that one animal is the ancestor of the other. there are saloon cars that run on diesel engine just like trailers and luxury buses that doesn't tell us that trailers, luxury buses evolved from saloon cars or that they evolved from lister generators, that argument doesn't follow when will you guys understand this?

Evolutionists keep searching for evidences that they tend to obfuscate their ideas in yet more theories that need more evidence. Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever but you can believe it that's up to you but just try not to pass it off as science.

Ancient and few select tribes involving in murder, rape etc doesn't answer the question of how we came to know right from wrong. And are you trying to say that lying is mainly for self preservation and yet we all consider perjury as a crime? You guys are so full of contradictions.

Well if scientist can't recreate a simple cell in a lab then its proof that life didn't originate by accident and if eventually they do it will be proof that life needs an intelligent designer to have existed and yet again that it didn't come by accident. So yes they are in a dilemma which I could really care less about.

Evolution theory does not have a gap it has gapssss and shouldn't be called a theory in the first place its all speculations.

I asked the OP several questions and she has avoided all of them one of which was the termite and the microbe in its gut that helps it digest wood which evolved first owing to the fact that both can't survive without the other? perhaps you could help her out because I believe they ve always existed side by side since inception

cloudgoddess:

Again, you've proved you're not knowledgable on it's basic points and refuse to learn, so you're in no place at all to make any judgment on it's validity.

What you're doing is the equivalent of me having not read a single book on astrophysics and then trying to spout that microwave radiation is made up. You're arguing from ignorance and it's making you look foolish.


Wow, the gay references really went over your head. Their purpose was to point out the ridiculousness of the idea that the creator of the entire universe and all of the millions of species on earth, would view homosexual behavior amongst a single primate species as a valid reason to destroy all life on the planet. It sounds eerily like something an egotistical man-baby with middle-eastern 1st century values would do. Certainly not an all-knowing, all-loving, infinitely understanding god.

Your theory is DUD its all speculations it never happened, you can claim I am nt knowledgeable in the subject matter that's up to you I don't care but your arguments in this thread have been filled with contradictions which you have failed to note so you have also refused to learn.

Once again Christianity is a religion and I never passed them off as science like you guys did the evolution theory. If you are going to peep into the bible and pick stories that suits your argument then you should be ready to accept my bible quotations when I start giving them to you in defense of the stories you brought up.

ElCount:

For any theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable, can't say that about your evolution theory.

Dude, you claim to be educated on this subject, yet you make such ignorant assertions. Evolution is extremely falsifiable, for example, if a single rabbit fossil is found in precambrian rock, evolution would be disproved. But there have been ZERO occurrences of this, not statistically less but zero.

ElCount:

There's nothing scientific about the birds evolving from reptiles, nothing scientific about a plant cell becoming an animal cell just because you said it will happen in millions of years.

You've seen the archaeopteryx fossil right? 'Cause if you have, you won't say this, and if you haven't, then you don't know enough about this subject to argue for or against it.

ElCount:

Please the fact that similar processes occur in different animals doesn't mean that one animal is the ancestor of the other. there are saloon cars that run on diesel engine just like trailers and luxury buses that doesn't tell us that trailers, luxury buses evolved from saloon cars or that they evolved from lister generators, that argument doesn't follow when will you guys understand this?

Botched analogy, you're only arguing your own flawed understanding of this subject. Living organisms are comprised of self-replicating proteins that are capable of mutation.

The Italian wall lizard, when introduced to new environment was observed to make an evolutionary shift from insectivorous
to herbivorous in less than 40 years.

ElCount:

Evolutionists keep searching for evidences that they tend to obfuscate their ideas in yet more theories that need more evidence. Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever but you can believe it that's up to you but just try not to pass it off as science.

There is evidence for abiogenesis, but it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and is distinct from the theory of evolution.

ElCount:

Well if scientist can't recreate a simple cell in a lab then its proof that life didn't originate by accident and if eventually they do it will be proof that life needs an intelligent designer to have existed and yet again that it didn't come by accident. So yes they are in a dilemma which I could really care less about.

If life had a designer, then that designer must be at least as complex as living organisms, this raises the important question as to who designed the designer? If the designer doesn't require a designer then why would you say that life requires one?

The fact that it hasn't been found out yet is not a valid reason to give up and abandon all research.

ElCount:

Evolution theory does not have a gap it has gapssss and shouldn't be called a theory in the first place its all speculations.

Once again, this is an opinion borne from your flawed understanding. If you seriously think so, then identify those gaps and formulate a hypothesis that doesn't have gaps.

ElCount:

I asked the OP several questions and she has avoided all of them one of which was the termite and the microbe in its gut that helps it digest wood which evolved first owing to the fact that both can't survive without the other? perhaps you could help her out because I believe they ve always existed side by side since inception

This is the main reason I answered this post. You're arguing for irreducible complexity, and claiming that one cannot survive without the other. But every symbiotic relationship can be explained simply, the bacterium benefited the termite by allowing it to digest wood while the termite would provide food for it, the infected individuals eventually took over the others by natural selection and they both became interdependent. In this scenario how exactly is this relationship irreducibly complex?

CoolUsername:


Dude, you claim to be educated on this subject, yet you make such ignorant assertions. Evolution is extremely falsifiable, for example, if a single rabbit fossil is found in precambrian rock, evolution would be disproved. But there have been ZERO occurrences of this, not statistically less but zero.

I don't need that when they are many other problems with evolution from its mechanisms to the total absence of actual transitional species. One problem for instance with fossils IS the presence of carbon in dinosaur bones. Some crationsost sevreatly did tests for carbon on dinosaur bones which turned out to yield positive results overturning the idea that dinosaurs are millions of years old. What was it if not fear that stopped the evolutionists from repeating the tests again once they found out what the creationists had done ?

CoolUsername:

You've seen the archaeopteryx fossil right? 'Cause if you have, you won't say this, and if you haven't, then you don't know enough about this subject to argue for or against it.

The archaeopteryx fossil is one of a true bird not a dinosaur-bird transitional. 'Nuff said.

CoolUsername:

Botched analogy, you're only arguing your own flawed understanding of this subject. Living organisms are comprised of self-replicating proteins that are capable of mutation.

The Italian wall lizard, when introduced to new environment was observed to make an evolutionary shift from insectivorous
to herbivorous in less than 40 years.

The analogy holds. You don't need a fanciful theory of universal common descent just because of some similiaritiea between species. What of their differences ? What of their ability to adapt which is what explains your so-called evolutionary shift in Italian wall lizards.

CoolUsername:

There is evidence for abiogenesis, but it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and is distinct from the theory of evolution.

There is NIL evidence for abiogenesis. Even the scientists in the field are adamant that it's far from a settled science.

CoolUsername:

If life had a designer, then that designer must be at least as complex as living organisms, this raises the important question as to who designed the designer? If the designer doesn't require a designer then why would you say that life requires one?

The fact that it hasn't been found out yet is not a valid reason to give up and abandon all research.

Not if that designer is the First Cause. In that case, it needs no designer, by definition.

CoolUsername:

Once again, this is an opinion borne from your flawed understanding. If you seriously think so, then identify those gaps and formulate a hypothesis that doesn't have gaps.

I identify some of those gaps in my listed facts below. You are free to try and rebut it.

CoolUsername:

This is the main reason I answered this post. You're arguing for irreducible complexity, and claiming that one cannot survive without the other. But every symbiotic relationship can be explained simply, the bacterium benefited the termite by allowing it to digest wood while the termite would provide food for it, the infected individuals eventually took over the others by natural selection and they both became interdependent. In this scenario how exactly is this relationship

He is not arguing for irreducible complexity there. That said I told cloudgoddess some facts about her precious theory which make it untenable. She did not respond. You are welcome to respond in her place.

Fact 1) Random mutations, a principal evolutionary mechanism spoils the genome and is incapable of adding functional genetic information.

Fact 2) Species through time have been shown since recorded history to be the same for thousands of years. They only reproduce after their likes

Fact 3) There are no fossils of millions of evolutionary dead ends which should occur if species were cobbled through random mutations.

CoolUsername:


Dude, you claim to be educated on this subject, yet you make such ignorant assertions. Evolution is extremely falsifiable, for example, if a single rabbit fossil is found in precambrian rock, evolution would be disproved. But there have been ZERO occurrences of this, not statistically less but zero.



You've seen the archaeopteryx fossil right? 'Cause if you have, you won't say this, and if you haven't, then you don't know enough about this subject to argue for or against it.



Botched analogy, you're only arguing your own flawed understanding of this subject. Living organisms are comprised of self-replicating proteins that are capable of mutation.

The Italian wall lizard, when introduced to new environment was observed to make an evolutionary shift from insectivorous
to herbivorous in less than 40 years.



There is evidence for abiogenesis, but it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Abiogenesis is only a hypothesis and is distinct from the theory of evolution.



If life had a designer, then that designer must be at least as complex as living organisms, this raises the important question as to who designed the designer? If the designer doesn't require a designer then why would you say that life requires one?

The fact that it hasn't been found out yet is not a valid reason to give up and abandon all research.



Once again, this is an opinion borne from your flawed understanding. If you seriously think so, then identify those gaps and formulate a hypothesis that doesn't have gaps.


This is the main reason I answered this post. You're arguing for irreducible complexity, and claiming that one cannot survive without the other. But every symbiotic relationship can be explained simply, the bacterium benefited the termite by allowing it to digest wood while the termite would provide food for it, the infected individuals eventually took over the others by natural selection and they both became interdependent. In this scenario how exactly is this relationship irreducibly complex?

Hmmm! So we will have to wait for a single rabbit fossil to be found in precambrian rocks before we can agree that evolution theory is a dud, as if to say if it happens you and your ilks will accept it.
You have jumped in to tell me about archeaopteryx without even realizing that fossil of birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx (that is if I am to subscribe to your geologic column) your evolution theory doesn't even support your argument with the archeaopteryx.

you ve gone ahead to say abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, but you have already told me earlier that there is evidence for abiogenesis, who can argue with such logic. Why do you guys do these things to yourselves?

For the symbiosis relationship between the termite and the microbe, your argument does not follow, because from your argument there would be a time when the termite existed without the microbe, which means at that point the termite would be unable to digest wood and consequently any consumption of wood would be injurious to the termite or possibly kill it.
Now why would the termite consume something that would kill it? Or are you saying it kept on trying out the wood diet until one day it got lucky and met the microbe that saved the entire termite race?
I don't think the question involves irreducible complexity, its a simple question of which evolved first?

UyiIredia:


I don't need that when they are many other problems with evolution from its mechanisms to the total absence of actual transitional species. One problem for instance with fossils IS the presence of carbon in dinosaur bones. Some crationsost sevreatly did tests for carbon on dinosaur bones which turned out to yield positive results overturning the idea that dinosaurs are millions of years old. What was it if not fear that stopped the evolutionists from repeating the tests again once they found out what the creationists had done ?

What's your source? I just hope it's not that Hugh Miller thing that has been found out to be a hoax.

UyiIredia:

The archaeopteryx fossil is one of a true bird not a dinosaur-bird transitional. 'Nuff said.

A true bird with obvious reptilian traits. It's area of classification is just a function of the incomplete fossil record. It's bone structure has common features modern day birds alongside that of reptiles. Wherever it's classified does not change reality.
How is this even a point?

UyiIredia:

The analogy holds. You don't need a fanciful theory of universal common descent just because of some similiaritiea between species. What of their differences ? What of their ability to adapt which is what explains your so-called evolutionary shift in Italian wall lizards.

The ability to adapt is one of the driving forces of evolution and that's what causes differences. You basically just refuted your own argument. The lizards have shown just how fast isolated populations can diverge (eg: the change in the lizards' digestive system); also, we've seen speciation occur in fruitflies in the lab. So what exactly are you arguing against?

UyiIredia:

There is NIL evidence for abiogenesis. Even the scientists in the field are adamant that it's far from a settled science.

I said that it's a hypothesis, didn't you see that? By the way, under the right conditions, self replicating nucleic acids can self-assemble from simpler compounds. Synthesis of the protocell hasn't occurred yet.

UyiIredia:

Not if that designer is the First Cause. In that case, it needs no designer, by definition.

If a First Cause could come from nothing, then why not energy, matter, and life?

UyiIredia:

Fact 1) Random mutations, a principal evolutionary mechanism spoils the genome and is incapable of adding functional genetic information.

More like 'myth #1'. Mutations can be additive, deletive, or neither. Mutations are usually neither. Also, successive, additive mutations have been observed in Lenski's experiment.

UyiIredia:

Fact 2) Species through time have been shown since recorded history to be the same for thousands of years. They only reproduce after their likes

Really? Dogs? Bananas? Elephants and their shorter tusks? Are you kidding me?

UyiIredia:

Fact 3) There are no fossils of millions of evolutionary dead ends which should occur if species were cobbled through random mutations.

What comprises an evolutionary dead end? Every extinct animal should theoretically be considered one, right? If not, what exactly are you looking for?

ElCount:

Hmmm! So we will have to wait for a single rabbit fossil to be found in precambrian rocks before we can agree that evolution theory is a dud, as if to say if it happens you and your ilks will accept it.

Tch, let it be found. And not some fabricated ploy but a real one.

ElCount:

You have jumped in to tell me about archeaopteryx without even realizing that fossil of birds have been found in older rock strata than Archaeopteryx (that is if I am to subscribe to your geologic column) your evolution theory doesn't even support your argument with the archeaopteryx.

So what? This why I say that you don't really understand evolution. Several transitional species only give stronger evidence to show that a transition happened and they help us narrow down the period it occurred. So what exactly are you trying to imply here?

ElCount:

you ve gone ahead to say abiogenesis is only a hypothesis, but you have already told me earlier that there is evidence for abiogenesis, who can argue with such logic. Why do you guys do these things to yourselves?

But every good hypothesis must have at least sme evidence backing it. Also, didn't I say that it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt to become a theory? Are you intentionally misunderstanding me?

ElCount:

For the symbiosis relationship between the termite and the microbe, your argument does not follow, because from your argument there would be a time when the termite existed without the microbe, which means at that point the termite would be unable to digest wood and consequently any consumption of wood would be injurious to the termite or possibly kill it.
Now why would the termite consume something that would kill it? Or are you saying it kept on trying out the wood diet until one day it got lucky and met the microbe that saved the entire termite race?
I don't think the question involves irreducible complexity, its a simple question of which evolved first?

It eats decomposing plant matter, it's not a stretch to say that a little rotten wood won't enter into its diet, especially when food is scarce. It's possible that infected individuals would have fared far better than others during those periods. I'm just speculating though.

Asking which evolved first is a fallacy. If you truly understand evolution, you should know that it's a continuous process that doesn't end.

CoolUsername:


What's your source? I just hope it's not that Hugh Miller thing that has been found out to be a hoax.

http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

CoolUsername:

A true bird with obvious reptilian traits. It's area of classification is just a function of the incomplete fossil record. It's bone structure has common features modern day birds alongside that of reptiles. Wherever it's classified does not change reality.
How is this even a point?

I've said enough on this.

CoolUsername:

The ability to adapt is one of the driving forces of evolution and that's what causes differences. You basically just refuted your own argument. The lizards have shown just how fast isolated populations can diverge (eg: the change in the lizards' digestive system); also, we've seen speciation occur in fruitflies in the lab. So what exactly are you arguing against?

Well simple cases of adaptation do nothing to prove molecules to man evolution.

CoolUsername:

I said that it's a hypothesis, didn't you see that? By the way, under the right conditions, self replicating nucleic acids can self-assemble from simpler compounds. Synthesis of the protocell hasn't occurred yet.

Nucleic acids don't self replicate as far as I know. Even if it were true it won't prove abiogenesis. One has to show how environmental factors interplayed to produce the first lifeforms.

CoolUsername:

If a First Cause could come from nothing, then why not energy, matter, and life?

The First Cause has always existed in a form. I can't say the same of matter and life.

CoolUsername:

More like 'myth #1'. Mutations can be additive, deletive, or neither. Mutations are usually neither. Also, successive, additive mutations have been observed in Lenski's experiment.

SMH. Go to Wikipedia's page on Mutations to see examples of additive and deletove mutations. You haven't said anything to rebut my point. Lenskis experiment involved additive mutations on a gene that allowed the E. coli bacteria use citrate in aerobic environs.

CoolUsername:

Really? Dogs? Bananas? Elephants and their shorter tusks? Are you kidding me?

That's my point. They are still dogs, bananas and elephants never mind the changes.

CoolUsername:

What comprises an evolutionary dead end? Every extinct animal should theoretically be considered one, right? If not, what exactly are you looking for?

Incmpleteley assembled animals and the likes. Random mutations cannot make an organism perfect from the start yet all so-called transitional are perfectly formed species in their own right.

CoolUsername:


Tch, let it be found. And not some fabricated ploy but a real one.



So what? This why I say that you don't really understand evolution. Several transitional species only give stronger evidence to show that a transition happened and they help us narrow down the period it occurred. So what exactly are you trying to imply here?



But every good hypothesis must have at least sme evidence backing it. Also, didn't I say that it hasn't been proven beyond reasonable doubt to become a theory? Are you intentionally misunderstanding me?



It eats decomposing plant matter, it's not a stretch to say that a little rotten wood won't enter into its diet, especially when food is scarce. It's possible that infected individuals would have fared far better than others during those periods. I'm just speculating though.

Asking which evolved first is a fallacy. If you truly understand evolution, you should know that it's a continuous process that doesn't end.

So what? Did you just ask that question?
So if fossils of birds were found in earlier rock strata than that of your archeaopteryx according to your geologic column it then implies that it can't be a transitional or intermediate specie between reptiles and birds. You are so blinded in your arguments do you even read these things b4 you click the submit button? (I don't subscribe to the geologic column but you can't even see that it doesn't even support your argument)

Who said hypothesis must have at least some evidence backing it? Did you observe macro-evolution? A hypothesis remains a hypothesis, again try reading these things b4 you submit.

Again you were speculating on the symbiosis between the termites and the microbes and at thesame time trying to pass it off as scientific truth. This is exactly what the evolution theory is speculations, a dud, it never happened you guys hope it did.
Evolution is a continuous process yet we have to wait billions of years for macro evolution to take place. Don't bother with the micro evolution evidence thingy because I won't reply you on that.

UyiIredia:


http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

So in the end it was actually the Hugh Miller story. Hugh miller, who is not a chemist posed as one to obtain fossils from a museum that had been contaminated with shellac (a form of preservative). He ran the tests on said bones and got skewed results. For some reason, the Institute for Creation Research (your source), who obviously
have no ulterior motives failed to mention this in the article.

That is why we let professionals do the job.

UyiIredia:



Well simple cases of adaptation do nothing to prove molecules to man evolution.

You mean cell to man as molecules are not living organisms and hence can't be said to undergo evolution due to their lack of genetic material.
But UyiIredia, you should at least define the upper limits of such adaptations rather than retrospectively
shoehorn all experimental evidence of evolution into simple adaptation (although adaptation is only distinct from evolution to creationists, disregarding the fact that they are both driven by mutation and natural selection).

UyiIredia:

Nucleic acids don't self replicate as far as I know. Even if it were true it won't prove abiogenesis. One has to show how environmental factors interplayed to produce the first lifeforms.

And that is why it is a hypothesis. I clearly stated that. Try to understand this time.
PS: Nucleic acids are self-replicating.

UyiIredia:

The First Cause has always existed in a form. I can't say the same of matter and life.

Well, energy can't be created or destroyed as far we know and we know that all matter is just condensed energy
, so it's possible that the first cause is energy. Any other hypothesis would require some form of evidence. It would then require further evidence to prove that this first cause is a conscious being. Good luck with that.

UyiIredia:

SMH. Go to Wikipedia's page on Mutations to see examples of additive and deletove mutations. You haven't said anything to rebut my point. Lenskis experiment involved additive mutations on a gene that allowed the E. coli bacteria use citrate in aerobic environs.

You know the meaning of 'usually' right? I said that mutations are USUALLY/MOSTLY neither additive nor deletive (ie: MAJORITY of them are neither). Stop misquoting me.

The experiment I cited showed that it is possible for a mutation with no observable effect to be built upon by another order to produce a new trait.

UyiIredia:



That's my point. They are still dogs, bananas and elephants never mind the changes.

But dogs share a common ancestor with wolves, foxes and other canines, and elephants with mammoths. In an experiment where foxes in captivity were selectively bred for tameness, after several generations, the foxes started to devolop dog-like traits, such as: drooped ears, spotted fur and standing tails. This gives credence to the fact that they indeed have a common ancestor
.

UyiIredia:

Incmpleteley assembled animals and the likes. Random mutations cannot make an organism perfect from the start yet all so-called transitional are perfectly formed species in their own right.

What the hell? Incompletely assembled animals? How exactly would an incompletely assembled animal live long enough to reproduce and have any chance of fossilizing?

And what's this business about fully-formed species? We don't have the luxury of millions of fossils to show every gradual trend. Also, you're the same person who'll see the great difference between a rotweiler and a chihuahua and yell 'they're still dogs' so why are you even asking this?

ElCount:

So what? Did you just ask that question?
So if fossils of birds were found in earlier rock strata than that of your archeaopteryx according to your geologic column it then implies that it can't be a transitional or intermediate specie between reptiles and birds. You are so blinded in your arguments do you even read these things b4 you click the submit button? (I don't subscribe to the geologic column but you can't even see that it doesn't even support your argument)

Do you understand how this thing works at all? Do you think that one singular specie would act as a bridge between two separate species? No, speciation occurs in a gradient. Dude, look you're not paying for tuition.

ElCount:

Who said hypothesis must have at least some evidence backing it? Did you observe macro-evolution? A hypothesis remains a hypothesis, again try reading these things b4 you submit.

No such thing as macro or micro evolution it's just evolution unless you can come up with a defined upper limit for your so-called microevolution.

ElCount:

Again you were speculating on the symbiosis between the termites and the microbes and at thesame time trying to pass it off as scientific truth. This is exactly what the evolution theory is speculations, a dud, it never happened you guys hope it did.
Evolution is a continuous process yet we have to wait billions of years for macro evolution to take place. Don't bother with the micro evolution evidence thingy because I won't reply you on that.

I didn't pass of my speculation as truth. Instead I just applied a similar principle of the observed lizard transition that I cited above to this (a minuscule amount of the lizard's original diet was plant matter). The evolutionary changed just made them more effiecient in digesting it. Applied to the termites case it is possible that they began to eat more wood when the bacterium made them more efficient at digesting it.

CoolUsername:


Do you understand how this thing works at all? Do you think that one singular specie would act as a bridge between two separate species? No, speciation occurs in a gradient. Dude, look you're not paying for tuition.

I believe we can now agree that the archeaopteryx is not an intermediate/transitional specie according to your geologic column between birds and reptiles. Since you are implying that a singular specie can't act as a bridge between two separate species, the question now arises "What are the intermediate species that exist/existed between the reptiles and the birds?"

ElCount:

I believe we can now agree that the archeaopteryx is not an intermediate/transitional specie according to your geologic column between birds and reptiles. Since you are implying that a singular specie can't act as a bridge between two separate species, the question now arises "What are the intermediate species that exist/existed between the reptiles and the birds?"

This is why I keep saying that you're just arguing against your own botched understanding. There's no singular transitional specie but rather a series of transitional species between two distinct species. Every animal is a transitional specie if you look at it. I just explained this.

CoolUsername:


This is why I keep saying that you're just arguing against your own botched understanding. There's no singular transitional specie but rather a series of transitional species between two distinct species. Every animal is a transitional specie if you look at it. I just explained this.

Really! Like are you for real?
Every animal is a transitional specie? Wow! You are even more ignorant of the theory than you could have imagined.

Here is a statement from Charles Darwins' book the origin of species "...if my theory be true, numberless
intermediate varieties... must assuredly have existed."

The truth is I don't know how best to really reply this your comment because its a truck load of contradictions and obfuscation.

At the bold
what are these series of transitional species that existed between the reptiles and the birds?

ElCount:

For any theory to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable, can't say that about your evolution theory.
There's nothing scientific about the birds evolving from reptiles, nothing scientific about a plant cell becoming an animal cell just because you said it will happen in millions of years.

I suspect I'll be repeating a lot of what Cloudgoddess has already written, but, if nothing else, it will hopefully emphasise the point. The theory of evolution IS scientific and falsifiable. It is the fact that it can be so easily potentially falsified that makes it one of the stronger scientific theories around today. If, for instance, the same pattern of shared ERVs seen in primates is found in canines then the theory of evolution will have been falsified.

Your argument involving the Newtonian law of gravity bothers on Fallacy of accident. The fact that it was still used at the time doesn't justify it being the appropriate thing to do, besides you rightfully pointed out that it was true in some occasions.

It most certainly doesn't border on fallacy. It's probably one of the best examples of the scientific method. That scientists could see that Newtonian gravity didn't explain every instance of gravity, didn't mean they decided to go with an explanation involving angels pulling the planets around the sun. Instead the pursuit of knowledge continued, and with each incremental step, the formulation of a newer theory explaining gravity. That's still not the end of the story because there are still instances where the theory of general relativity doesn't apply... but that's another thread. The point here is, you need to understand how science works.

Please the fact that similar processes occur in different animals doesn't mean that one animal is the ancestor of the other. there are saloon cars that run on diesel engine just like trailers and luxury buses that doesn't tell us that trailers, luxury buses evolved from saloon cars or that they evolved from lister generators, that argument doesn't follow when will you guys understand this?

No, when I referred to shared ERVs, I meant the genetic evidence of shared common ancestry between humans and other apes. I'm just gonna copy/paste:

Human beings and other apes share endogenous retroviruses in unique sites. Endogenous retroviral insertions occur most likely because of failed invasions by viruses in the germline cells. The particular cells are then genetically marked and if passed to an offspring, the offspring possesses said marker. This, in turn, ensures that they can act like genetic markers. Further, that human beings and other apes have the shared ervs in a way that supports models of common ancestry should tell you something. End of short summary.

Evolutionists keep searching for evidences that they tend to obfuscate their ideas in yet more theories that need more evidence. Abiogenesis has no evidence whatsoever but you can believe it that's up to you but just try not to pass it off as science.

Nah, there's evidence for abiogenesis. I doubt anyone expects you to know that, though. In any case, like I said, even if the earth and all life were created by some unspecified deity, the theory of evolution is still best explains the change in allele frequencies in a population of living organisms. It stands apart from the origins of life.

Ancient and few select tribes involving in murder, rape etc doesn't answer the question of how we came to know right from wrong. And are you trying to say that lying is mainly for self preservation and yet we all consider perjury as a crime? You guys are so full of contradictions.

Actually, that most tribes (not a few) are/were violent does help to explain why we, as individuals in tribes, have internalised the ethics built to strengthen our tribes. Yes, lying is founded on self-preservation (of not only oneself, by the way). However, it comes with pitfalls in a society of social animals. That's because trust is an important aspect of social cohesiveness. Losing that social currency can be costly. The preservation of that currency has understandably been codified in the instance of court proceedings - not that it stops people from lying. Codification comes with societally determined punishments.

Well if scientist can't recreate a simple cell in a lab then its proof that life didn't originate by accident and if eventually they do it will be proof that life needs an intelligent designer to have existed and yet again that it didn't come by accident. So yes they are in a dilemma which I could really care less about.

Or you're being intentionally disingenuous. You stated that scientists haven't even created a simple living cell in their labs. Hence that section of my post. Seems to me you don't know what you want. What if they create the conditions, and let that simple cell arise organically?

Evolution theory does not have a gap it has gapssss and shouldn't be called a theory in the first place its all speculations.
I asked the OP several questions and she has avoided all of them one of which was the termite and the microbe in its gut that helps it digest wood which evolved first owing to the fact that both can't survive without the other? perhaps you could help her out because I believe they ve always existed side by side since inception

Is that the only gap? If a poster can't explain which would have come first, does that invalidate all the data that show evolution?

In any case, the termite's ancestor evolved with bacteria in its gut. With time said ancestor will have evolved with any bacteria. Think of it this way: the same thing can be found in humans and the digestion of cow milk.

UyiIredia:


http://www.icr.org/article/carbon-14-found-dinosaur-fossils/

Copy/Pasta:

The research by Miller et al.

A research team from the CRSEF, or Creation Research, Science Education Foundation, led by Hugh Miller, has claimed to have dated dinosaur bones using radiocarbon methods, determining them to be no older than several dozens of thousands of years old. Let's look at their research methodology in detail (indicated by bullet points):

As it turns out, Miller's research group obtained their sample in quite a remarkable way. In fact, the creationist posed as chemists in order to secure a number of fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from a museum of natural history, misrepresenting their own research in the process of doing so.

When the museum provided the bone fragments, they emphasized that they had been heavily contaminated with "shellac" and other chemical preservatives. Miller and his group accepted the samples and reassured the museum that such containments would not be problematic for the analysis at hand. They then sent it to a laboratory run by the University of Arizona, where radiocarbon dating could be carried out. To get the scientists to consider their sample, the researchers once again pretended to be interested in the dating for general chemical analysis purposes, misrepresenting their research.

Let's take a little pause to consider the general issue of misrepresenting your own research. It is understandable that Miller et al. did this, since there would have been a slim chance (at best) of the museum curator providing them with any dinosaur bone fragments if he or she had known what the true intent of the supposed chemists was. In particular, it is implausible that it would have been considered worthwhile to try to use radiocarbon dating methods on these bones, since the rocks that they were taken from were determined to be 99+ million years old, as shown in this paper by Kowallis et al. Now, it is known that 14C decays at a fast enough rate (half-life ~6000 years) for this dating method to be absolutely useless on such samples. Thus, it appears that Miller et al. would not have been able to obtain this sample, had they been honest about their intent. This, of course, raises some ethical questions, but let's brush these aside for now. We proceed with the examination of the research done by Miller and his fellow researchers from the CRSEF.
What exactly are we dating here? Sample contamination and general trustworthyness.

After the samples were submitted by the laboratory, Miller et al. were informed by a professor from the University of Arizona that the samples were heavily contaminated, and that no collagen (where most of the carbon for 14C dating comes from) was present.

(rest here: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/154588/is-it-a-problem-with-radiometric-dating-that-carbon-14-is-found-in-materials-dat)

That's my point. They are still dogs, bananas and elephants never mind the changes.



Incmpleteley assembled animals and the likes. Random mutations cannot make an organism perfect from the start yet all so-called transitional are perfectly formed species in their own right.

Fundamental misunderstanding of the theory. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

ElCount:

Really! Like are you for real?
Every animal is a transitional specie? Wow! You are even more ignorant of the theory than you could have imagined.

Here is a statement from Charles Darwins' book the origin of species "...if my theory be true, numberless
intermediate varieties... must assuredly have existed."

The truth is I don't know how best to really reply this your comment because its a truck load of contradictions and obfuscation.

At the bold
what are these series of transitional species that existed between the reptiles and the birds?

You're the guy who thinks, that animals just jump from one specie to another. You need to study exactly how evolution works.

I suggest 'The Greatest Show on Earth' by Richard Dawkins.

Come back when you know enough to argue.

UyiIredia:

Incmpleteley assembled animals and the likes. Random mutations cannot make an organism perfect from the start yet all so-called transitional are perfectly formed species in their own right.

Sigh

So are you ever going to actually read a legitimate book on evolutionary biology, or are you just going to keep arguing from ignorance forever?

CoolUsername:


So in the end it was actually the Hugh Miller story. Hugh miller, who is not a chemist posed as one to obtain fossils from a museum that had been contaminated with shellac (a form of preservative). He ran the tests on said bones and got skewed results. For some reason, the Institute for Creation Research (your source), who obviously
have no ulterior motives failed to mention this in the article.

That is why we let professionals do the job.

Hugh Miller wasn't the only one who did the tests. Too bad I can't get the other link. That was why I had to settle for the Hugh Miller story to prove my point. If evolutionists are rocksure there is no C-14 in dinosaur bones they can as well put it to the test. They don't. As if to prove the fact that those dinosaur bones were young blood cells were found in some of them. Google Mary H Schweitzer.

CoolUsername:

You mean cell to man as molecules are not living organisms and hence can't be said to undergo evolution due to their lack of genetic material.
But UyiIredia, you should at least define the upper limits of such adaptations rather than retrospectively
shoehorn all experimental evidence of evolution into simple adaptation (although adaptation is only distinct from evolution to creationists, disregarding the fact that they are both driven by mutation and natural selection).

Not all adaptation is driven by mutation. Some are intrinsic to an organism and need no mutation to occur.

CoolUsername:

Well, energy can't be created or destroyed as far we know and we know that all matter is just condensed energy
, so it's possible that the first cause is energy. Any other hypothesis would require some form of evidence. It would then require further evidence to prove that this first cause is a conscious being. Good luck with that.

God is a being of conscious energy. If there was only energy there would be no consciousness even if life evolved which it didn't. But there is consciousness. A purely materialist view is incapable in principle to explain the presence of consciousness.

CoolUsername:

You know the meaning of 'usually' right? I said that mutations are USUALLY/MOSTLY neither additive nor deletive (ie: MAJORITY of them are neither). Stop misquoting me.

The experiment I cited showed that it is possible for a mutation with no observable effect to be built upon by another order to produce a new trait.

But mutations are mostly single-point additive or deletive mutations.

No new trait was produced in Lenski's experiment. The ability to digest citrate was already present in E. coli. What changed was the conditions under which they could be produced.

CoolUsername:

But dogs share a common ancestor with wolves, foxes and other canines, and elephants with mammoths. In an experiment where foxes in captivity were selectively bred for tameness, after several generations, the foxes started to devolop dog-like traits, such as: drooped ears, spotted fur and standing tails. This gives credence to the fact that they indeed have a common ancestor

I don't share your conviction. What I do know is for thousand of years from what we have of recorded history in sculptures, paintings and writings species have remained the same.

CoolUsername:

What the hell? Incompletely assembled animals? How exactly would an incompletely assembled animal live long enough to reproduce and have any chance of fossilizing?

And what's this business about fully-formed species? We don't have the luxury of millions of fossils to show every gradual trend. Also, you're the same person who'll see the great difference between a rotweiler and a chihuahua and yell 'they're still dogs' so why are you even asking this?

It may not reproduce but there should be lots of it so that some would have fossilized. Remember random mutations made the species that were selected for and it couldn't possibly have made them perfectly at a go. There had to be lots of mistakes along the way before a final form was reached. But there are no fossils of the evolutionary dead ends as I like to call them.

KAG:


I suspect I'll be repeating a lot of what Cloudgoddess has already written, but, if nothing else, it will hopefully emphasise the point. The theory of evolution IS scientific and falsifiable. It is the fact that it can be so easily potentially falsified that makes it one of the stronger scientific theories around today. If, for instance, the same pattern of shared ERVs seen in primates is found in canines then the theory of evolution will have been falsified.




No, when I referred to shared ERVs, I meant the genetic evidence of shared common ancestry between humans and other apes. I'm just gonna copy/paste:

Human beings and other apes share endogenous retroviruses in unique sites. Endogenous retroviral insertions occur most likely because of failed invasions by viruses in the germline cells. The particular cells are then genetically marked and if passed to an offspring, the offspring possesses said marker. This, in turn, ensures that they can act like genetic markers. Further, that human beings and other apes have the shared ervs in a way that supports models of common ancestry should tell you something. End of short summary.



Nah, there's evidence for abiogenesis. I doubt anyone expects you to know that, though. In any case, like I said, even if the earth and all life were created by some unspecified deity, the theory of evolution is still best explains the change in allele frequencies in a population of living organisms. It stands apart from the origins of life.

I'm just gonna ignore every other thing you said because an argument on it will just take us in circles. However this ERV just caught my attention so let me tag along.
Given the way this ERVs works in both Apes and Humans, I believe I would be right when I say that the Apes are the DIRECT ancestors of Humans right?

Secondly, you keep reiterating that Abiogenesis has evidence please what is this evidence?

ElCount:

I'm just gonna ignore every other thing you said because an argument on it will just take us in circles.

That doesn't surprise me. Speaking of evading...

However this ERV just caught my attention so let me tag along.
Given the way this ERVs works in both Apes and Humans, I believe I would be right when I say that the Apes are the DIRECT ancestors of Humans right?

Humans and other modern apes share a common ancestry. The genetic evidence - one of which is shared ERVs - shows that to be the case.

Secondly, you keep reiterating that Abiogenesis has evidence please what is this evidence?

Start a new thread and tag me.

UyiIredia:

It may not reproduce but there should be lots of it so that some would have fossilized. Remember random mutations made the species that were selected for and it couldn't possibly have made them perfectly at a go. There had to be lots of mistakes along the way before a final form was reached. But there are no fossils of the evolutionary dead ends as I like to call them.

What's the difference between a species that goes extinct and one that's an evolutionary dead end? Speaking of final forms, are you under the impression the theory of evolution works in the pokemon fashion? In any case, remember that evolution occurs in a population.

KAG:


That doesn't surprise me. Speaking of evading...



Humans and other modern apes share a common ancestry. The genetic evidence - one of which is shared ERVs - shows that to be the case.



Start a new thread and tag me.

I'm not evading, not even close. I just don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. However I may come back to that termite-microbe love story later, I'm just interested in the ERVs now.

Still on the Ape-Human-ERV, one can confidently say that the Apes are intermediary species between the ape ancestors (whoever they are) and humans right?

I'm not starting up any thread to talk about abiogenesis I believe it has no evidence and its not even worth debating about

ElCount:

I'm not evading, not even close. I just don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. However I may come back to that termite-microbe love story later, I'm just interested in the ERVs now.

I don't believe your claim that you don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. In any case, there points addressing your questions and questions I asked in return. Since your previous stance seemed to be that unanswered questions meant you were right (or something), then...

Anyway, yes do come back to the evolution of termits and bacteria when you feel like it. No harm in that.

Still on the Ape-Human-ERV, one can confidently say that the Apes are intermediary species between the ape ancestors (whoever they are) and humans right?

Goodness, no! I'll repeat it: Humans and modern apes share common ancestry. I'm not sure why that's not clear. Hope this helps: the divergence in Hominidae happened at several points, but humans didn't evolve from modern apes.

I'm not starting up any thread to talk about abiogenesis I believe it has no evidence and its not even worth debating about

Well I guess you'll never know, then.

KAG:


I don't believe your claim that you don't engage in an argument for the sake of it. In any case, there points addressing your questions and questions I asked in return. Since your previous stance seemed to be that unanswered questions meant you were right (or something), then...

Anyway, yes do come back to the evolution of termits and bacteria when you feel like it. No harm in that.


Goodness, no! I'll repeat it: Humans and modern apes share common ancestry. I'm not sure why that's not clear. Hope this helps: the divergence in Hominidae happened at several points, but humans didn't evolve from modern apes.


Well I guess you'll never know, then.

You know when you talk about common ancestry you are talking of something like a blood line or better still pedigree, so it will have to play out like a Tree or Chain right?
So by Shared Ancestry you will be talking about either Parent-Child kind of shared or Brother-Sister kind of shared isn't it?

I really want to get you in this

ElCount:

You know when you talk about common ancestry you are talking of something like a blood line or better still pedigree, so it will have to play out like a Tree or Chain right?

Or a bush.

So by Shared Ancestry you will be talking about either Parent-Child kind of shared or Brother-Sister kind of shared isn't it?

I really want to get you in this

I'm not sure what's not clear. Humans and other apes share common ancestry. The phrase "Parent-Child kind of shared or Brother-Sister kind" is meaningless in this context. Here's an image to give you an idea (edited to use an image with a simpler tree):