Is evolution a fact?

[Dustnite]

No, life was created by God, not by random unguided evolution.

Evolution isn't unguided. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

I don't expect you to understand this, however, as anything that doesn't confirm your bias you willfully ignore. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid man...

 

[surreptitious57]

life was created by God not by random unguided evolution

Then why is the evidence for evolution overwhelming while the evidence for God is completely non existent
Also evolution is not unguided as its primary function is the propagation of species through natural selection

 

[WarK]

life was created by God not by random unguided evolution

Then why is the evidence for evolution overwhelming while the evidence for God is completely non existent
Also evolution is not unguided as its primary function is the propagation of species through natural selection

It's ironic given one of his posts from the previous page:

Not sure why you say that I don't know how evolution works?

Here's a clue:

decided to evolve

Looks an awful lot like you don't know how evolution works.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Of course. Most if not all of population genetics is NOT in dispute; i.e. gene flow, drift, deleterious mutations, beneficial mutations, natural selection, etc.

Thus, you accept the fact of evolution. You have a problem with the theory and path if evolution.

Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box. The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.

No, life was created by God, not by random unguided evolution.

Evolution isn't unguided. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

I don't expect you to understand this, however, as anything that doesn't confirm your bias you willfully ignore. Keep drinking that Kool-Aid man...

Evolution did not create life. Evolution is how life is still here on this ever changing planet.

 

[Deleted member 619]

We are all slowly de-evolving due to genetic entropy.

This is the bit where you get to tell us all what entropy is.

This will be fun.

 

[Rhed]

Evolution did not create life. Evolution is how life is still here on this ever changing planet.

So would you accept that life could have started by intelligence?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Evolution did not create life. Evolution is how life is still here on this ever changing planet.

So would you accept that life could have started by intelligence?

Yes. Have any evidence?

 

[Dustnite]

yes. Have any evidence?

I know the answer!

 

[tuxbox]

yes. Have any evidence?

I know the answer!

hehe

 

[Rumraket]

Our DNA is amazingly complex and sophisticated and still considered a black box.

The way you are portraying this seems to imply we are basically clueless. That is very far from the truth and in fact the other way around, while we still have much to learn, we've got the basics down very well and understand most of the important cellular genomic processes going on in the cell.

The DNA code and among other codes in your body are designed.

It is clear that you believe this, what you need to do is demonstrate that.

 

[Rumraket]

We are all slowly de-evolving due to genetic entropy.

Prove it.

Mother Nature, or naturalistic evolution, doesn't correct errors.

This is painfully wrong and at a trivial level. Any mutation that constitutes an error is in principle reversible. Meaning if it can mutate so as to create an error, it can mutate back again later.

In the first case, the deleterious mutation would be selected against most of the time, depending on how deleterious it is. In the latter case, the correction of the error would be selected for, depending on the degree to which it would be beneficial to change it back.

Mother Nature does not conserve traits for just-in-case scenarios.

Correct.

Naturalistic evolution should create store-houses in the genome.

It should? Why?

It doesn't know why to evolve wings to fly, or flippers to swim, or eyes to see or ears to hear.

Of course not, the end result are the byproducts of selection for something else that is beneficial in the interim period on the way to the final result.

For example, feathers which are used by all bird's wings, are very useful as insulators. The arms, which eventually became wings, did other things in the mean time. In this way natural selection does not have to "select for wings" when selection was for insulation, other forms of helping locomotion (such as jumping and gliding) instead.

These are all hallmarks of design; not random unguided mutations.

No, they are hallmarks of random unguided evolution. We can directly detect their evolutionary relationships using various phylogenetic and comparative methods.

Perhaps your imagined unguided random theory of evolution wears the emperor's new clothes.

Funny. Here's my request for you: Demonstrate ANY amount of instant divine creation under properly controlled conditions.

I know creationists like to say they accept micro evolution but not macroevolution. Well, I can do even better than that, I will openly concede that macro-creation is possible if you can demonstrate micro-creation. So no new speciation, and you don't even have to create an extinct form of life with divine magical powers.

I want to see the divine and instantaneous creation of a single organism, from a species we know already exists and which can be seen with the naked eye. A single one. A fly, a worm, a typical house-cat. Something that already exists. If you can demonstrate the instant creation into thin air of such an organism under properly controlled laboratory conditions (I have to personally witness it though, I do not accept 2nd-hand accounts from anyone), I will believe in creationism. All of creationism, I will accept all of it. And you only have to demonstrate micro-creation of a small living thing, as long as it can be seen easily with the naked eye.

I'm not even asking for a herd of Mammoths here, or an entire continent full of biodiversity created in a single day. A single fucking plant or animal will do. Make a Fern, or a Rose appear. Plants will suffice, make them pop up out of nothing into thin air and I will instantly convert to creationism and I will be fully on board.

So go on then, time to demonstrate your hypocritical double-standard with respect to evidence.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Hey Bernhard, why don't you try actually reading the archaeopteryx article you linked in the debate and explain how it supports your claim that the archaeopteryx has been debunked as a transitional? Specific quotes from the article that you think are pertinent.

Because I read the article and it does not say what you are pretending it says.

 

[Collecemall]

He didn't read it before he posted it why would he bother now? He's busy squawking about his victory in pigeon chess. Let him have his shine. He's earned it.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Oh look, Mr. "I didn't read the article I linked and it completely backfired on me" is back

And he's still being deliberately obtuse and still refuses to understand what forensic science is. How fucking suprising

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

 

[Mr_Wilford]

Let's add the context of that quote

Now Archaeopteryx is sinking back into the crowd of primitive birds and feathered dinosaurs. As Ed Yong has ably explained, a fresh wave of fossils are coming to light. They reinforce the argument that paleontologists have agreed on for a couple decades now: birds evolved from a lineage of dinosaurs called theropods. But it’s less clear now how exactly Archaeopteryx fits into that evolution. It might still be closely related to the ancestors of living birds, or there might be non-flying theropods that were more closely related. Combine this with the recent discoveries of heavily feathered dinosaurs–feathered down to their feet, in fact–and the possibility emerges that dinosaurs evolved into flyers more than once

Wow, there are so many other fossils confirming the dinosaur/bird transition it's not longer clear where exactly on the tree archeopteryx fits. Lookie there, the article bites you in the butt yet again. How are the conditions in the Quote Mines?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

And what's more

When it first became clear that birds evolved from theropods, scientists took a look at dinosaur brains to trace this hyperinflation. They found that Archaeopteryx’s brain fell in between that of distantly related theropods, such as Tyrannosaurus rex, and living birds. What’s more, its structure resembled that of birds–at least compared to other dinosaurs. The visual centers were expanded, and the regions of the brain it used to process sound were big. Its brain was, it seemed, ready for flight.

It's brain is halfway between dinosaurs and birds? Hmmm, sounds transitional to me.

The whole point of the article was that acheoptyrex is no longer special because there are many other fossils showing the dinosaur / bird transition with more developed features. So it is not entirely clear where in the tree it should be precisely placed. It doesn't debunk archeoptyrex as being transitional at all.

Your pathetic ramblings show not only are you extremely pissy about us calling you out on your bullshit, but you can't even read your own damn links.

And of course you decide to call everyone brainwashed, which only goes to show your defense mechanism of demonizing your opponent so it's easier to ignore them is kicking in. Funny that's what you accuse everyone else of doing.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Oh right talk about my evidence without bringing your own. Predictable and pathetic. But because I don't have to worry about my evidence, because I supply evidences that prove my point.

Point was evolutionists don't know where archaeopteryx belongs.

So having lots of examples of transitional fossils covering the evolution of birds is the same as having none, according to you.

You have already acknowledged that if you individuals are shown to be related a common ancestor must exist even if we don't know who it was or the precise relationship. Therefore the only evidence that matters is the evidence that establishes that archaeopteryx is related both to birds and to non-avian dinosaurs.

Please explain how you can reject that conclusion from the premises. If you cannot you are knowingly asking for irrelevant information and pretending it is significant.

But if you prefer we can talk about your claim that genetic information cannot be increased by mutation and selection in the same way you agree it can by horizontal gene transfer.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

So having lots of examples of transitional fossils covering the evolution of birds is the same as having none, according to you.

Not to mention according to Bernie:

1.Telomeres don't fuse (except when they do. Consistency doesn't matter to him, it seems)

2.Hippo giving birth to a monkey is evolution (doesn't matter if evolution allows no such thing, he can't strawman if he doesn't believe it's true, therefore anything he says is a valid argument)

3.Saying "you didn't see it" is a total refutation of finding genes for legs in whales and seeing which regulatory genes mutated to get rid of them via forensic science

4.Forensic science apparently isn't real science (you didn't see the crime, so any evidence you bring is worthless)

 

[DutchLiam84]

Don't forget that Bernie claimed to be a scientist. :lol: