Is evolution a fact?

[australopithecus]

Re: Does AronRa ever bring proof?

Seems to me the "does AronRa ever bring proof" thread is wholey irrelevant, seeing as the OP could have been made in this thread. As such; merged.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Why still bother...Bernhard is obviously a lost cause.

I could give my standard "fence sitters" response, which is true regardless of my motives. However, I truly enjoy arguing with reality deniers on and off line. The depths of their ignorance always brings a smile to my face. Correcting falsehoods is my hobby and I enjoy it.

Okay, but this guy is denser than a black hole. He knows less than Jon Snow!

 

[Prolescum]

Lads and ladies, refrain from making personal attacks upon fellow members. I'm getting rather annoyed with having to repeating this simple-to-follow rule lately.

Attack ideas, please.

 

[AronRa]

I don't see a reason to continue with e supposed whale legs.

You see legs because you believe evolution. Simply the way it is.

I don't see legs because I provided lucid, rational reasons for claiming they are not legs.

You've never made a lucid or rational contribution to this forum.

Attached to pelvic bone? So what so can a fin

No. Every attachment from a pelvic bone to a fin is called a leg.

The fin matches your description perfectly.

Except that in this case, it's a flipper, not an actual fin. A flipper has hand bones inside it. Fins don't. That's evidence for evolution by the way, although you refuse to understand why.

Now why didn't mr. Evolution and those who follow evolutionary religion call it a fin? Because they already claimed that a whale walked back into the water.. Therefore it must be legs or admit a mistake. Instead of saying ok some sort of fin or ok teratogen ..., no hey say legs.. Therefore evolution.

That being the only explanation for why articulated leg or hand bones are now reduced or converted to flippers.

Plus the fact if it was a fin that would not be evidence for evolution because a whale is a type of fish which could easily have fin DNA... So not additional information, therefore if you argue the possibility of a fin you are abandoning evolution.

Another example of evidence of evolution is the fact that whales are NOT any type of fish, as you would understand it; they're mammals. The fact that you yourself are a mammal is also evidence of evolution, though you won't allow me to explain that either. Not only are you a mammal, but the exact type of mammal that you are is also evidence for evolution. The fact that humans are a subset of apes [Hominoidea] which is itself a subset of monkeys [Anthropoids/Simiiformes] are evidence of evolution because (1) they are facts, meaning points of data that are indisputable in that they can demonstrated or confirmed. (2) evidence is a body of facts which are positively indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with one available option over any other. (3) Creationism cannot account for these facts and can't dispute them either. Therefore creationists simply have to ignore these facts or try to conjure some excuse to dismiss them, even though there is no 'common designer' argument that can account for this. So they have to ignore it; that's what
"ignorance" means.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you won't let me explain it to you, because you refuse to learn, because your world view really is a matter of pretend, where truth is irrelevant. You failed this discussion because you refuse to accept what you already know to be true, because it's proven. You'd rather believe what can't be true. So yeah, this really is all about your ignorance.

To the rest of you on this thread, I say again, Bernhard Visscher is not as stupid as he pretends to be, but he is immature and insincere, and obviously willfully ignorant. His next post will be the same sort of childish irrational petulance as he has already shown in all of his conversations with the rest of you so far. So stop feeding this troll. He doesn't care about truth or knowledge or anything like that. He 's already proved that he won't be reasoned with. He's only interested in playground-level taunting where he thinks he is playing you for giggles.

 

[Rando]

And once again he gives us the "information" canard, but no metric for measuring it. How do you know this isn't an increase in "information" when you refuse to provide the metric for it?

 

[Mugnuts]

Do you beleive you are accomplishing anything other than usurping abelcainsbrother's title as the most useless poster?

Look him up, he couldn't figure out the quote function either.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To the rest of you on this thread, I say again, Bernhard Visscher is not as stupid as he pretends to be, but he is immature and insincere, and obviously willfully ignorant. His next post will be the same sort of childish irrational petulance as he has already shown in all of his conversations with the rest of you so far. So stop feeding this troll. He doesn't care about truth or knowledge or anything like that. He 's already proved that he won't be reasoned with. He's only interested in playground-level taunting where he thinks he is playing you for giggles.

You are not telling me anything that I (and I would bet they others) do not already know. Let us have our fun. Each one of us will drop out at our own rate. Correcting the same mistakes repeatedly from the same person does get boring.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragon glas.... Do you believe your whale evolution charts?

The charts show the evolution of whales.

Why should I not accept it? It's what the fossils tell us.

Did you watch whole video?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

So to the rest of the Ra minions...

Can I ask you to stop calling us "Ra minions"? I'm nobody's minion.

Thank you and good wishes.

 

[Mugnuts]

Bernhard, how about you put your postulations to the test? Why don't you put forward your explanation/model for the diversity of life on earth? Let's see how long you last doing that.

 

[Rumraket]

Ok rum racket... Then I ask you a simple question did mr Ra bring evidence for evolution?

Yes but, mostly he's trying to get you to agree to the standard definitions so you can't run away. You seem to have a hard time keeping this civil and honest though, you'd much rather be "against everything" just for the hell of it, instead of trying to show some genuine interest in moving the discussion forward and seeing where it takes us.

Now do you accept mr Ra never brought any evidence? If no.. Please for the love of God quote his evidence.

He described it in his latest post. The nesting hiearchical arrangements(we are animals, within that we are mammals, within that we are primates, within that we are monkeys and so on) that are possible to construct from our shared derived characteristics are evidence for evolution.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Again there is no evidence I run from... Ever.

:lol:

You ran from the evidence Dragan Glas and Rumraket presented. You ran from my questions to move our conversation forward. Not to mention, this whole thread is an example of you running from your agreement with AronRa. It seems all you do is run.

 

[Rumraket]

For example.

If I say ok we have shared characteristics... Well so what? It could simply be common designer. Like two Ford cars van and car will have shared characteristics.

Different ford cars have different designers. Some times many different designers designing the same car.

There is no a priori expectation of commonalities on design, a designer can deliberately choose to design something different every time. But evolution cannot, only what already exists can slowly evolve into something different. So evolution absolutely predicts nesting hierarchies of similarities, while design predicts nothing in particular.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

He who is nobody. There is always an endless horde of questions.. To then therefore claim running because the last question is not answered is simply ridiculous... By that standard whenever you don't answer a question for whatever reason it must be considered running. ... Under that standard then mr Ra is also running because he's not answering the question evidence?

You accepted AronRa's challenge that you would answer direct question. He even pointed out it might take a month. That is why AronRa has not given you evidence, you backed out of your agreement. That is how you are running.

Nobody I will answer any five questions you deem I am skipping. Really any five.. After five maybe I answer maybe I don't.

Then if you claim running after that well that's your problem... Any five ... On topic...

I only need three.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Biologically speaking, what is above the species level? As I understand it, the only thing that matters is the species. What I mean by this is if we observe one speciation event, than we observe another speciation event from that new one, what would you call that? I would simply call it a speciation event, why would it be anything else?

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You still have not defined "simple" or "complex" in any meaningful way in biology. Until this is done , you are simply holding an empty bag.

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

Oh it's the kinds argument..... Is that somehow supposed to debunk the argument? Or is this just a little sidestep so you don't have to brig evidence?

First off, you do not have an argument. Second, based on your definition of kinds you accept that humans and all other great apes are the same kind.

And here is a forth.

Rando[/url]"]Forget asking for a definition of "Information," I want a step by step formula for calculating it. You claim to know how much is in an Amoeba, okay, how EXACTLY did you arrive at that number? Give us the exact methodology for calculating the Information that is in something, cause so far I have NEVER seen a creationist, or "cdesign proponentsists" do it.

I will crowd source my fifth.

In addition, if you stop answering question, I might stop feeding you.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thank you dragon glas... Then there is your faith.

It's not faith - it's based on empiric evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is not based on empiric evidence.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mugnuts]

Wrong thread.... Little hulk... But start another tag me.. And I will teach you.

Go ahead and start one. I'm sure it will be fascinating...or more like the same PRATT that will entertain us as we destroy every on of them.

BTW, your condescending tone, and repeat utterance of what you seem to think as witty, or whimsical retorts; they are nothing but immature attempts to get an emotional response. If that's all you have behind you, then go away and grow up a bit. Come back when you want to talk with the adults.

 

[Bango Skank]

Just a friendly request in case a discussion of creationism will take a place, because there is always been a big fault in there. When discussing in support of creationism, one should not use "evolutionist" sources as a proof of creationism. There should be a plenty of independent research done by creation scientists, so use those sources instead. I personally have not take a part of these discussions myself much, but when i have, i have rejected any source from "evolutionists" or what is based on that, because we are now talking evidence for creationism.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Lol evidence...

Ok dragon glas.. Prove to me then if it's not faith... A dorudon is the direct ancestor of a basilosaurus?

If you watched the video to which I linked, you would have seen that three things changed over time:

1) ear bones size and shape;
2) nostrils moved further back along skull;
3) hind legs disappeared and fore limbs became flippers.

If you look at the last of the three images I linked, it shows these various mammals, from Pakicetus (four-legged, land mammal) to Basiloterus (sea mammal with flippers) are related in order by how the ear bones changed over time.

The chances that one part of life-forms' bodies is related is small - that multiple parts of life-forms' bodies are related and can be arranged in the order in which all these different parts simultaneously changed over time is infinitesimal.

This empiric evidence is consistent with evolution, as the theory of evolution predicts.

To assume that this order is evidence for design is adding a layer of complexity that is not required.

What "designed" these life-forms in such a way as to (mis)lead scientists into thinking that they are simply dealing with evolution?

If it was done by ET, then you have to explain how ET came about.

If "God", then you have to prove it - and quoting the bible is not proof. Also, you'd have to explain why "God" would mislead humans in this way.

There is no objective evidence for "God" - there is for evolution.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Mugnuts]

Again if you want to discuss creationism.. Start a thread... I see no reason to start one because you guys know how it works anyway... Even though you don't agree. For me to start it is pointless. I will come though when asked. Claiming to be insulted while being insulting is very hypocritical of you. I already know atheists and their kind are all like that, but hopefully you can be made personally aware of it by this simple message.

I will no longer respond to you since you are incapable of handling a little bit of sarcasm.. Because otherwise you will complain and I'll probably be banned its how it works.

Utter nonesense. Once again. What you claim to know and understand is far below the reality of that case.

And quit trying to martyr yourself. Why do you think this forum exists? To ban people who disagree with 'X'?

The fact that you want to now ignore me is because I am sounding reasonable, and not up to playing yor games.

Hypocrite whom?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

No... It's an assumption... Nobody was around to know. You assume through a few changes you therefore get the basilosaurus... But nobody was around to see it...

Also you have zero way of knowing if the fossil above the basilosaurus did in fact procreate.. Another assumption.

Therefore assuming it did procreate and assuming those minor changes did occur.. You can assume they follow each other... That's not science that evolutionary religion.

10 points for your bs though.

You dismiss what I've pointed out to you without providing any other explanation that holds up to scrutiny.

No-one has to be around to see it - we can deduce the evolutionary trail through the fossils and their dating. If everybody had to be alive to see it, we'd know nothing beyond our grand-parents having directly witnessed events! Be sensible!

You make the assumption that because we only find dead things - fossils - that nothing procreated. Are you seriously suggesting this?

It's a perfectly logical inference that all these - and other - body parts changing in tandem over time are meaningful: that this represents a clear process of change over time, otherwise known as evolution. This is not religion - it's science.

And it's not my "bs" - it's the worldwide scientific community's concordance.

Kindest regards,

James