Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #94]

Again, let me make this point blatantly clear; my position regarding macroevolution is simple..

1. I don't believe that it occurred in any way, shape or form.
2. It did not occur in individual populations
3. It did not occur in group populations
4. It did not occur suddenly (one birth at a time)
5. It did not occur gradually (many births over hundreds of millions of years)

Not that it will change your mind, but for any interested reader who's not quite as dogmatic, I'll point them to this link:

https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibra ... xamples_01

This was the very first link supplied in a Google search for "simple examples of macroevolution".

Whatever one's position is on any scientific theory, the best way to strengthen it is to attempt to falsify it. Only a theory that 'survives' multiple attempts to falsify it can be worthy of the name. My ten-second research effort has already provided a few counter-examples to your claims, so it should be clear to most that they (i.e your claims) are untrue.

You are welcome to your belief, of course. But posting such easily falsifiable claims (without supporting evidence) on a scientific sub-forum shows you in an unflattering light. It also (IMHO) suggests your claim (made elsewhere) to be here 'to teach' is similarly unsupported.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #111]

We can all post our supporting links, can't we? Do you know how many anti-evolution websites I can appeal to and post the link to on here?

Where will that lead us?

[We_Are_VENOM]

If you speak to otseng, you would be able to get access to your old account.

Yup, I already spoke to the brotha.

That's easy, I acknowledge and accept that materialism currently has no explanations for the origin of: universe, life and consciousness. It's easy to accept because no explanation is better than "God did it" as an explanation.

Stop playing. I almost believed you for a second haha.

Why either-or? I choose both. Link me to your argument please.

I will.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #102]

And just for the record, my position is that macroevolution did not, and CANNOT occur in nature...PERIOD.

Amphibians evolving from fish is just one example of so called "macro" evolution. There is enough fossil evidence to show that this did in fact happen. Here are just a few links:

https://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolutio ... sition.htm

https://www.ck12.org/c/biology/amphibia ... d-BIO-ADV/

https://allyouneedisbiology.wordpress.c ... mphibians/

https://www.britannica.com/animal/amphi ... sification

Why would you have a problem with amphibians evolving from fish, given the overwhelming evidence for it? Sounds like simple denial purely because it may contradict a biblical description, and not for any logical reason like you examined the evidence (eg. of the type in the links above) and found fault with it. Claiming that any science is wrong if it contradicts the biblical narrative is as closed minded as it gets. Humans evolving from a great ape ancestor has even more evidence to support it because of the genetics work of the last few decades, which confirms what was implied by the fossil record. It all makes too much sense to just discard the whole scheme in favor of ignorant (of science) stories from 2000+ year old texts.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #111]

We can all post our supporting links, can't we? Do you know how many anti-evolution websites I can appeal to and post the link to on here?

Where will that lead us?

Firstly, yes, we can all support our claims with evidence (links). That's kind of important for this to be any kind of worthwhile debate. Secondly, if you're hinting that you have some large number of website resources to draw upon to support your claim, then the quantity of such resources doesn't necessarily matter - only the quality (validity) does. Thirdly, there's no need to now post any links to support your claim as it's already been shown to be false by counter-example (by my link). Fourthly, this thread is getting more views than replies to it, and I prefaced my remarks by saying, "for any interested reader who's not quite as dogmatic, I'll point them to this link"; I was addressing a wider audience who might be willing to learn about macroevolution, not just you.

Where this is already leading us to is to 'evidence for evolution', as that's the only evidence thus far supplied.

[brunumb]

Cool stuff like eyeballs, skin, bones, blood, etc. are all constructed from organic molecules which are in themselves made from the same elements found throughout the universe. No magic involved.

It takes a lot of low entropy for all of these elements of physical matter to come together in a organized and structured manner to get us all of this cool stuff.

Care to scientifically explain how you can get all of this low entropy from an original high entropy state.

Care to explain how you can get all of this low entropy stuff given that all of it forms naturally billions of times every day.

[Peter]

[Replying to Miles in post #1]
Is there any scientifically valid evidence that the TOE cannot account for?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #114]

Oh, that is what I like about evolutionists they are so imaginative. Using the https://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolutio ... sition.htm article as an example because it seems to be the most detailed. It begins its fishy evolutionary fairytale with Panderichthys the lobe-finned fish. But then as your article points out "Then it was proven that they were really still fish." (Ahlberg and Milner, 1994, p. 508). Unfortunately, the article does not describe how it was proven that Panderrichthys were just fish. I know everyone is just itching to know.

You see, panderrichthys is part of the crossopterygian family. And it just so happens that Coelacanths have been observed swimming off the coast of Madagascar. They were swimming backward, upside–down, and even standing on their head but they have never been observed to walk on land or in the sea. It was just a fish, and a very very old fish according to evolutionary fairytales.

And then came the hole "Tiktaalik" fiasco.

Ahh yes, the make-believe fairytales of evolutionary biology never cease to amaze me at how God made the human mind with such imagination.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #118]

Ahh yes, the make-believe fairytales of evolutionary biology never cease to amaze me at how God made the human mind with such imagination.

This issue was that amphibians evolved from fish. Piecing together everything that is known about the history of amphibans, not just the one article you commented on but the entire body of science on the subject, it is highly probable that amphibians did indeed evolve from fish. Or do you have some information that contradicts this? If so, let's hear it. I expect the scientific community would be very interested in this new information that could falsify ToE and send it to the trash bin of debunked scientific theories. So far no one has done that, so you might be up for a nobel prize if you can break the story.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #119]

The crazy thing about this is that TOE already has been falsified many times. It was once believed that evolution had to be slow and gradual. But then when new data was discovered that contradicted this slow and gradual change view like the Great Cambrian Explosion". Evolution evolved into something different call "Punctuated equilibrium".

You see those that believe in evolution love make up these stories of how fish changed into amphibians or how whales came from land animals (now that is a good fairytale for you). But as the saying goes "the Devil is in the details". But as one examines the list of organisms that eventually evolved into a whale or amphibian there are all kinds of problems with the list. Organisms can be out of order, major morphological jumps. Why do you thing punctuated equilibrium was proposed? It was not because paleontologists saw the slow and gradual march of evolution in the rock record. It was because the rock record is a testament to the creative power of God in nature, with each organism created after its own kind.