Quantcast
46% of Americans believe in Creationism

Forums - General Discussion - 46% of Americans believe in Creationism

orniletter said:
OooSnap said:
 

Of course, evolution is anything what evolutinionists want it to be as long it keeps their fairytale going.

Answer this question. Did evolutionists expect "living fossils" and amber fossils to have evolve, Yes or no? Did supposed millions of years of stasis contradict the evolutionists' predictions, yes or no?

If you answered No, then you need to take it up with the evolutionists I quoted.

 

If the conditions in which the species lived didn´t change over the years and it is already highly specialised...No, it wont change ! Mutations are the basis of Evolution, random errors in the DNA that may cause nothing at all....or something big.

When an single individual in a see of other individuals gains a special positive characteristic through a mutation, it is more likely that this single individual will survive and reproduce more often than the other animals without the new characteristic, the children of the mutant will give the special characteristic to their own children (which themself will have an advantage over the other animals)

...when a mutation has a negative effect, the opposite happens: The individual is less likely to survive/ give it´s DNA to the next generation

 

If a species is already highly specialised to certain condiditions and it´s ecological niche isn´t changed over the course of 500 million years it  won´t evolve

 

No, this is no condradiction, living fossils are evidence in favour of the evolution theorie (survival of those who fit the best)

Wow. You really believe in this evolution story even though their discoveries totally contradicts their predictions.

You see, evolutionists and evolution proponents do a lot of "explaining" but hardly any real science to back up their claims. Please produce the empirical evidence!

That said, random mutations have never been observed to cause "something big." That's an assumption.

Don't take my word for it, let's read what evolutionists have said themselves:

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

No new-species fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.

"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."—*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.

"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70

We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

Dr. Lynn Margulis: "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the hens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create.... [N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify and organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence." http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg68

We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"

(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/lynn_margulis_a053421.html#sthash.VYOZhM7c.dpuf
We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"

(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/lynn_margulis_a053421.html#sthash.VYOZhM7c.dpuf
We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"

(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/lynn_margulis_a053421.html#sthash.VYOZhM7c.dpuf

 

We agree that very few potential offspring ever survive to reproduce and that populations do change through time, and that therefore natural selection is of critical importance to the evolutionary process. But this Darwinian claim to explain all of evolution is a popular half-truth whose lack of explicative power is compensated for only by the religious ferocity of its rhetoric. Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being? How do cauliflowers descend from tiny, wild Mediterranean cabbagelike plants, or pigs from wild boars?"

(Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, p. 29 (Basic Books, 2003).)

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/lynn_margulis_a053421.html#sthash.VYOZhM7c.dpuf

Some scientists would even argue that all genomes are degenerating because of mutations, so it's impossible to get a primordial cell to you by the way of the zoo.

One of the scientists is Dr. John Sanford who systematically lays out the scientific case against mutations resulting in the origin of species. http://www.amazon.com/Genetic-Entropy-Mystery-Genome-Sanford/dp/1599190028/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5912512-4089535?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1181429577&sr=8-1

And more evidence supports his claim http://crev.info/2011/06/110605-genetic_entropy_confirmed/

If "living fossils" are in favor of evolution then why were scientists shocked to discover them?

"Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution). (Gould, Stephen J., "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p. 15)

"The principle problem is morphological stasis. A theory is only as good as its predictions, and conventional neo-Darwinism, which claims to be a comprehensive explanation of evolutionary process, has failed to predict the widespread long-term morphological stasis now recognized as one of the most striking aspects of the fossil record." (Williamson, Peter G., "Morphological Stasis and Developmental Constraint: Real Problems for Neo-Darwinism," Nature, Vol. 294, 19 November 1981, p. 214)

"Every paleontologist knows that most species don't change. That's bothersome ... brings terrible distress. ... They may get a little bigger or bumpier. But they remain the same species and that's not due to imperfection and gaps but stasis. And yet this remarkable stasis has generally been ignored as no data. If they don't change, it's not evolution so you don't talk about it."
Stephen Jay Gould, Lecture at Hobart & William Smith College, 14/2/1980

I mean seriously, you must have a lot of faith to believe organisms supposedly 500 million years old can remain the same even on the morphological level. Despite all those supposed metorite impacts, ice ages, tsunamis, mass extinctions etc. that evolutionists have surmised, those darn organisms refused to evolve? Seriously? Let's not forget their  mutation rates are much higher than humans so 'living fossils' surely shouldn't exist with the mass accumulation of mutations. 

Go ahead, give another ad hoc explanation.

To me the evolution story covers any and all possible conditions - change and no change. It's a schizophrenic "theory"



Around the Network
GameOver22 said:
Final-Fan said:
OooSnap said:
Another thing that totally destroys the evolution story (to me at least) are "living fossils" and amber fossils.
How convenient a lot of these organisms didn't evolve over 100+ million years. "They don't need to evolve" = a cheap cop-out that only dogmatic evolutionists would buy.

Why is it a cheap cop-out that some animals evolve dramatically and some don't? 

I've been hesitant to jump in here, but if the explanation is that some animals evolve and some don't (and I'm sure it's more complicated), the problem would be that the explanation is post-hoc, meaning that it's added after the fact to address deviations from the theory, and adds little to no theoretical value to the explanation. The key point being that you would need a mechanism to explain and predict the deviations that are observed. Just to be clear, I have no clue if biology has provided an explanation or not.....it's not my area of expertise and my knowledge comes from a handful of casual readers on the subject.


Wow, a reasonable post (besides my own ).



allenmaher said:
OooSnap said:
allenmaher said:
 

 

For the record macro evolution is BS.  All evolution consists of changes in heritable traits (genetic information) within a population of individuals.  These genetic changes will over time alter populations such that they become incompatible (infertile) with other populations.  Phenotypic changes, the way things look, does not always change. Appearances and body forms that have survival advantage tend to be around an exceptionally long time.  Other phenotypes, such as those that will help you get a mate are also strongly selected for.  The rate of change in a population is governed by several things, the manner of reproduction (asexual, sexual, male/female preferences, and so on), the lifespan of individuals in the population, and exposure to mutagens along with the species genetic repair mechanisms.  A fossil or a species is simply a snapshot of a population in time, they are constantly evolving.

While mutation is random, selection is not.  Sharks are incredibly adept animals and have many features that have endured for a long time for example, this does not mean that they do not evolve, they do change (developing a very interesting adaptation to the increasing salinity of the oceans for example).  Your other examples are all, well, just silly straw man arguments that don't hold up on close examination. Any resemblance of a 50 million year old fossil to a modern species is likely partial skeletal similarity (there are not a lot of complete 50 million year old skeletons) and artist renderings using modern examples to flesh out the massive amount of information we don't know about those species.  There are 1240 or so bat species today for example, which points to the exact opposite of your claim, they have evolved and radiated into a magnificent array of populations that have common ancestry and some similar inherited traits.

I am sure you  will take issue with me not addressing every single one of your straw men, but believe it or not time is limited.  If you spent some time checking your arguments, I think you would find them all to be fallacious since they are based largely on the eronious arguments of macro evolution.  The encyclopedia of life ( http://eol.org/) is a great starting place where you can see a tremendous number of different species and thier common ancestors, plus lots of fun nifty stuff about them.  EOL tends to deal with current species but there are great credible paelentology sites out there too.


I agree Macroevolution is BS. But other evolution proponents on this forum say otherwise.

Phenotypic changes? You mean phenotype? The way things looks does not always change? What?

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Evolutionists are shocked to see it. It was not expected. It goes against their evolution story pressupposition. Hence the following quote:

“Many leading evolutionary theorists ... have been persuaded by punctuated equilibrium that the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature, 366:223–224.

To say "well, some organisms just don't evolve even after 400+ million years" is a cheap cop-out. Seriously, it makes me laugh to think people think of evolution as scientific.

Prove that bats evolved. The following scientistswill take issue with your claim:

“Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.”
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392

 

it is eminently clear that you don't really understand what you are quoting. A phenotype, or phenotypic trait can be preserved because it is evolutionarily successful, having claws for example.  At a genetic level all species are evolving an all species today that resemble ancient species do so because they have inherited traits, not because they are the same species and have not evolved.  i called macro evolution BS because the genotypic changes do not always have large phenotypic changes.  Large phenotypic changes can occur without a change in speciation.  I have never claimed that species don't evolve, they are all constatnly evolving.  Similar inherited traits due to ancestry do not equate to the same species remaining unchanged for long periods of time.

The punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is largely discredited since it conflicts with a considerable amount of evidence.  While shifts in morphology can occur in relatively short evolutionary time (still millions of years) this does not mean that the underlying mechanism of change is any different.  Changes in hox genes create very noticable differences but it is still just one genetic mutation. The gentic difference between hair, scales and feathers, very different ectodermic manifestations are really just a few base pair mutations.  Small genetic changes can have large manifestations or subtle phenotypicly invisible ones.

Humans are apes, we have a few traits that are different than the other apes, but really not that many.  The genetic differences between us and the other chimps is less than the natural genetic variation within many spcies. We even give ourselves our own genus, Homo, even though if we were to follow our own nomenclature rules the genus of humans should be Pan.  The three extant species of chimps are us Pan sapien, the regular chimp Pan troglodytes, and the bonobo Pan paniscus.  They share common traits because they have common ancestry,  all three species have evolved genetically since the last common ancestor.

A collegue and occasional drinking buddy of mine is an evolutionary biologist, he works on the area of post sexual selection (mainly at a molecular level), and while there is debate and research in the filed of evolution about things like the relative importance of selecetion methods, all of those debating understand that evolution is a fact.  In his words "I don't believe in evolution, it is a fact, there is no need for belief."  Debate in science is normal, but the evidence (facts) are agreed upon because they are verifyable.  That evolution occured is considered as much a fact as gravity.  Evolution is  better understood than gravity.  we know the mechanisms and we have ample evidence.

In science the term theory is not used casually. A well reasoned and supported conjecture is called a hypothesis, when something in science is called a theory, it is because there are mountains of supporting evidence and it represents our best understanding of how things work based on many well tested hyponthesis. 

Rather than cherry picking quotes from papers that you clearly don't understand, why not read the papers?  Have you read them or do you just grab the quotes out of context from some creationist disinformation site?

 


Okay, instead of going back and forth with this how about you show me empirical evidence that evolution is a fact - that is an organism evolving an eye, wing or some type of feature that would give credence to the goo to you by the way of the zoo story. What's you show me the documentation we can call it a day. 

You may think I am asking for too much but am I really if evolution is supposedly scientific?

The scientific method is based on observable, empirical evidence  among other things. Indeed empiricism (an basis in experiment) is what gives science its credibility. Showing empirical evidence of some repitilian species evolving feathers or wings, or a land mammal species evolving a blow hole, or a culture of prokaryotes evolving eyes or limbs.

If you can't show any empirical evidence then it falls short of the scientific method. Simple as that.

Evolution proponents are good at giving just-so stories but not actually producing hard science.



orniletter said:
OooSnap said:
 

Of course, evolution is anything what evolutinionists want it to be as long it keeps their fairytale going.

Answer this question. Did evolutionists expect "living fossils" and amber fossils to have evolve, Yes or no? Did supposed millions of years of stasis contradict the evolutionists' predictions, yes or no?

If you answered No, then you need to take it up with the evolutionists I quoted.

 

If the conditions in which the species lived didn´t change over the years and it is already highly specialised...No, it wont change ! Mutations are the basis of Evolution, random errors in the DNA that may cause nothing at all....or something big.

When an single individual in a see of other individuals gains a special positive characteristic through a mutation, it is more likely that this single individual will survive and reproduce more often than the other animals without the new characteristic, the children of the mutant will give the special characteristic to their own children (which themself will have an advantage over the other animals)

...when a mutation has a negative effect, the opposite happens: The individual is less likely to survive/ give it´s DNA to the next generation

 

If a species is already highly specialised to certain condiditions and it´s ecological niche isn´t changed over the course of 500 million years it  won´t evolve

 

No, this is no condradiction, living fossils are evidence in favour of the evolution theorie (survival of those who fit the best)

Would we really not expect the ecological environment to change over that period of time? I thinks it's going to change regardless. The question is whether the change is relevant to the species and results in it's genes/DNA being passed on to the next generation. My concern, and this is just dawning on me, would be how to actually theoretically model the ecological environment in such a way as to produce a prediction.

I do some work in Political Science, and one big problem is modeling historical context, the big question being whether we actually have the ability to predict context, rather than just assuming it in our models. Based on what you're saying and correct me if I'm wrong, is that in order to completely explain evolution, we also need to be able to completely explain the environment within which these organisims live (eg. weather, temperature, food resources, etc.), which gets complicated very quickly.

Basically, we would need to be able to generate predictions about future conditions before we could generate future predictions about evolutionary processes, and this would require something more along the lines of a unified "theory of everything".



OooSnap said:
 


Okay, instead of going back and forth with this how about you show me empirical evidence that evolution is a fact - that is an organism evolving an eye, wing or some type of feature that would give credence to the goo to you by the way of the zoo story. What's you show me the documentation we can call it a day. 

You may think I am asking for too much but am I really if evolution is supposedly scientific?

The scientific method is based on observable, empirical evidence  among other things. Indeed empiricism (an basis in experiment) is what gives science its credibility. Showing empirical evidence of some repitilian species evolving feathers or wings, or a land mammal species evolving a blow hole, or a culture of prokaryotes evolving eyes or limbs.

If you can't show any empirical evidence then it falls short of the scientific method. Simple as that.

Evolution proponents are good at giving just-so stories but not actually producing hard science.


Evolution happens over millions of years.  The only way it is truly observable is through fossil records (hard science), which very clearly shows evolution to be real.  We cannot directly observe it happening (which seems to be your hypocritical criteria for reality), because we don't live for millions of years.  However, I get the feeling that you have a lot of 'truths' in your life that are not 'observable' in any fashion whatsoever. 



Around the Network

The idea of God, religious psychobabble nonsense was created to control the majority of lower class people. Organised religion has been highly effective in a powerful minority maintaining power and control over the majority.  People without religion have more freedom and choice to decide on how they want to live their lives without having to worry about an invisible God watching and judging their every move.



OooSnap said:
allenmaher said:
OooSnap said:
allenmaher said:
 

 

For the record macro evolution is BS.  All evolution consists of changes in heritable traits (genetic information) within a population of individuals.  These genetic changes will over time alter populations such that they become incompatible (infertile) with other populations.  Phenotypic changes, the way things look, does not always change. Appearances and body forms that have survival advantage tend to be around an exceptionally long time.  Other phenotypes, such as those that will help you get a mate are also strongly selected for.  The rate of change in a population is governed by several things, the manner of reproduction (asexual, sexual, male/female preferences, and so on), the lifespan of individuals in the population, and exposure to mutagens along with the species genetic repair mechanisms.  A fossil or a species is simply a snapshot of a population in time, they are constantly evolving.

While mutation is random, selection is not.  Sharks are incredibly adept animals and have many features that have endured for a long time for example, this does not mean that they do not evolve, they do change (developing a very interesting adaptation to the increasing salinity of the oceans for example).  Your other examples are all, well, just silly straw man arguments that don't hold up on close examination. Any resemblance of a 50 million year old fossil to a modern species is likely partial skeletal similarity (there are not a lot of complete 50 million year old skeletons) and artist renderings using modern examples to flesh out the massive amount of information we don't know about those species.  There are 1240 or so bat species today for example, which points to the exact opposite of your claim, they have evolved and radiated into a magnificent array of populations that have common ancestry and some similar inherited traits.

I am sure you  will take issue with me not addressing every single one of your straw men, but believe it or not time is limited.  If you spent some time checking your arguments, I think you would find them all to be fallacious since they are based largely on the eronious arguments of macro evolution.  The encyclopedia of life ( http://eol.org/) is a great starting place where you can see a tremendous number of different species and thier common ancestors, plus lots of fun nifty stuff about them.  EOL tends to deal with current species but there are great credible paelentology sites out there too.


I agree Macroevolution is BS. But other evolution proponents on this forum say otherwise.

Phenotypic changes? You mean phenotype? The way things looks does not always change? What?

So get me this straight. You actually believe that organisms supposedly 100+ million years old, and some that are  supposedly 400+ million years old, can remain the same physically, but humans supposedly evolved from an ape ancestor in just 7 million years? Really? If you want to believe that story.

There are many amber fossils, supposedly millions and millions of years old, and they look exactly identical like their modern counterparts. Somehow they just said no to evolution.

Evolutionists are shocked to see it. It was not expected. It goes against their evolution story pressupposition. Hence the following quote:

“Many leading evolutionary theorists ... have been persuaded by punctuated equilibrium that the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”Gould, S.J. and Eldredge, N., 1993. Punctuated equilibrium comes of age, Nature, 366:223–224.

To say "well, some organisms just don't evolve even after 400+ million years" is a cheap cop-out. Seriously, it makes me laugh to think people think of evolution as scientific.

Prove that bats evolved. The following scientistswill take issue with your claim:

“Like the bats, the whales (using this term in a general and inclusive sense) appear suddenly in early Tertiary times, fully adapted by profound modifications.”
Colbert. E. H., M. Morales, and E. C. Minkoff. 2001. Evolution of the vertebrates: A history of the backboned animals through time, 5thed., New York: Wiley-Liss, Inc. p. 392

 

it is eminently clear that you don't really understand what you are quoting. A phenotype, or phenotypic trait can be preserved because it is evolutionarily successful, having claws for example.  At a genetic level all species are evolving an all species today that resemble ancient species do so because they have inherited traits, not because they are the same species and have not evolved.  i called macro evolution BS because the genotypic changes do not always have large phenotypic changes.  Large phenotypic changes can occur without a change in speciation.  I have never claimed that species don't evolve, they are all constatnly evolving.  Similar inherited traits due to ancestry do not equate to the same species remaining unchanged for long periods of time.

The punctuated equilibrium hypothesis is largely discredited since it conflicts with a considerable amount of evidence.  While shifts in morphology can occur in relatively short evolutionary time (still millions of years) this does not mean that the underlying mechanism of change is any different.  Changes in hox genes create very noticable differences but it is still just one genetic mutation. The gentic difference between hair, scales and feathers, very different ectodermic manifestations are really just a few base pair mutations.  Small genetic changes can have large manifestations or subtle phenotypicly invisible ones.

Humans are apes, we have a few traits that are different than the other apes, but really not that many.  The genetic differences between us and the other chimps is less than the natural genetic variation within many spcies. We even give ourselves our own genus, Homo, even though if we were to follow our own nomenclature rules the genus of humans should be Pan.  The three extant species of chimps are us Pan sapien, the regular chimp Pan troglodytes, and the bonobo Pan paniscus.  They share common traits because they have common ancestry,  all three species have evolved genetically since the last common ancestor.

A collegue and occasional drinking buddy of mine is an evolutionary biologist, he works on the area of post sexual selection (mainly at a molecular level), and while there is debate and research in the filed of evolution about things like the relative importance of selecetion methods, all of those debating understand that evolution is a fact.  In his words "I don't believe in evolution, it is a fact, there is no need for belief."  Debate in science is normal, but the evidence (facts) are agreed upon because they are verifyable.  That evolution occured is considered as much a fact as gravity.  Evolution is  better understood than gravity.  we know the mechanisms and we have ample evidence.

In science the term theory is not used casually. A well reasoned and supported conjecture is called a hypothesis, when something in science is called a theory, it is because there are mountains of supporting evidence and it represents our best understanding of how things work based on many well tested hyponthesis. 

Rather than cherry picking quotes from papers that you clearly don't understand, why not read the papers?  Have you read them or do you just grab the quotes out of context from some creationist disinformation site?

 


Okay, instead of going back and forth with this how about you show me empirical evidence that evolution is a fact - that is an organism evolving an eye, wing or some type of feature that would give credence to the goo to you by the way of the zoo story. What's you show me the documentation we can call it a day. 

You may think I am asking for too much but am I really if evolution is supposedly scientific?

The scientific method is based on observable, empirical evidence  among other things. Indeed empiricism (an basis in experiment) is what gives science its credibility. Showing empirical evidence of some repitilian species evolving feathers or wings, or a land mammal species evolving a blow hole, or a culture of prokaryotes evolving eyes or limbs.

If you can't show any empirical evidence then it falls short of the scientific method. Simple as that.

Evolution proponents are good at giving just-so stories but not actually producing hard science.


As I said way back early on at my university we have an entire floor of a library filled with empirical experimental results.  Most secular univerrsities have the same just go visit one and read.  But if you are not that ambitious read The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution by Dawkins.