The so called Science of Evolution ' Is anything but Science ! (Page 4)

Blackshoes
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: "Scientific Fact No. 1 - Birds Prove Natural Selection is Naturally Wrong.
The body and soul of Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was his idea that evolution was made possible through natural selection. This concept is based on the suggestion that those members of a species that are a little stronger, a little larger, or run a little faster will live longer to procreate offspring with these superior adaptations. Darwin's theory suggests that millions of generations later the changes will result in new species. These adaptations are called links or intermediates between the old species and the new.
The idea of natural selection sounds great when considering deer. The deer that can sense danger the quickest and run the fastest are able to escape the predator on a more consistent basis. However, other examples on the "evolutionary tree" have many laughable flaws. One of the best examples of evolution nonsense is the thought that a wingless bird began to evolve a wing. Why this would occur is not answered by evolutionists. The wing stub did not make the bird more adaptable to his environment. The first wing stubs would be much too small for the bird to fly. Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. Why would the bird continue for millions of generations to improve a wing stub that is useless? The Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection of the most adaptable member of a species, not the weakest. A bird with a useless wing is at a severe disadvantage. This is the opposite of natural selection. According to natural selection, the members of the bird species with the smallest useless wing would be the most adaptable and most likely to survive in the largest numbers. According to the theory of natural selection birds could never evolve to fly. Evolution is simply nonsense. This is so funny.
We are then led to believe that some birds got tired of carrying around a worthless half-size wing, so they grew fingers on the end to help climb trees. The wings became arms and a new species was developed. Evolutionists actually believe this nonsense.
The theory of "natural selection" is the basis and foundation for the Theory of Evolution. The existence of birds literally destroys the theory of natural selection, sending the Theory of Evolution crashing like Tweety Bird below. The rest of this page stomps and grinds into dust the failed Theory of Evolution.

Help! I can't fly. My head is too big, and my wings are too small.
Evolutionists say birds grew hollow bones for less weight in order to fly. How would a bird pass this long-term plan to the millions of generations in order to keep the lighter bone plan progressing? The idea that birds or anything else has million-generation evolutionary plans is childish. The evolutionary concept of growing a wing over millions of generations violates the very foundation of evolution, natural selection.
Birds aren't the only species that proves the theory of natural selection to be wrong. The problem can be found in all species in one way or another. Take fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beach where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite a multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe air on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is a lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.
Giant dinosaurs literally exploded onto the scene during the Triassic period. The fossil record (petrified bones found in the ground as at the Dinosaur National Park in Jensen, Utah, USA) shows no intermediate or transitional species. Where are the millions of years of fossils showing the transitional forms for dinosaurs? They do not not exist, because the dinosaurs did not evolve.
Books published by evolutionists have shown the giant Cetiosaurus dinosaur with the long neck extending upright eating from the treetops. They claimed natural selection was the reason Cetiosaurus had a long neck. This gave them an advantage in reaching fodder that other species could not reach. One day during the assembly of a skeleton for a museum display someone noticed the neck vertebrae were such that the neck could not be lifted higher than stretched horizontally in front of them. The natural selection theory was proven to be a big lie. The Cetiosaurus dinosaur was an undergrowth eater. The long neck actually placed the Cetiosaurus at a disadvantage in his environment, just the opposite from the natural Theory of Natural Selection. Evolutionists will now claim the animal evolved a long neck because he had the advantage of eating from bushes on the other side of the river. This is typical of the stupid logic of an evolutionist."

https://biblelife.org/evolution.htm
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes:
Dr. John Morris is affiliated with the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon, California. He produces a column each month in a publication called Back to Genesis.
In a past issue, there appeared a fascinating piece regarding the startling admission of a molecular biologist who was interviewed earlier this year by a journalist in Virginia (Morris, 2000). I would like to pass along the gist of this piece because many of our readers likely are unacquainted with this valuable little paper, and because the incident is so telling.
The interviewer and the experimental biologist were discussing the matter of the incredible volume of complicated information that is packed into the human genetic code.
The newsman asked the researcher if he believed the astounding array of information in the DNA code—which the scientist had compared to a document “larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica,”—could have evolved by chance.
The scientist replied:
[N]obody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by “genius beyond genius,” and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.
The biologist was then asked if he had stated that conclusion in public. He replied that he had not. It simply was not feasible, he said, as a working scientist, to reveal a view of that nature.
He admitted that he could not deny the evidence for design, but that it would be professional suicide to deny that the genetic process had evolved. He confessed that if he openly expressed his true feelings, he’d soon “be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where [he] couldn’t earn a decent living.”
The biologist then compared his plight to the old quip about the elephant in the living room. He said that “creation design” is:
“like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!” (emphasis added).
Is that not pathetic? Even sad? The gentleman knows that the genetic code of the “fearfully and wonderfully made” human being could not have designed itself (Psa. 139:14). Hence, it must have proceeded from a Mind characterized by “genius beyond genius.”
And yet he is so intimidated by his science peers, he is so fearful for his reputation, and he is so afraid of losing his income, that he refuses to acknowledge his Creator in a candid and public way.
There are so many of this caliber. They might as well hang a sign around their neck with these words: “Integrity for sale.”

Below is the article
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: "Why Do So Many Scientists Endorse Evolution?
compiled by Daryl E. Witmer
The obvious reason that so many scien-tists endorse the theory of macroevolu-tionary process as the best explanation for life origins and development here on earth is because they really believe such to be the case. But is that true, really? Is it possible that there’s a lot more to the story than meets the eye?
— Wayne Frair, Ph.D., AIIA’s Re-source Associate for Science and Origins, says this: “Polls have shown that about 40% of scientists acknowledge a supernatural power. But the majority of the scientific community, especially evolutionary leaders today, hold an atheistic worldview. As support for their anti-supernatural worldviews, these scientists need mechanisms for the origin of life, especially humans.”
“Atheism needs evolution to escape from any implications regarding a creator. If one starts with Darwinism, certainly it is easy to escape from any obligation to God. Those opposed to their reasoning are branded as obscurantists who are trying to intrude religion into science.” *
• Dr. Emery S. Dunfee, former professor of physics at the University of Maine at Farmington: “One wonders why, with all the evidence, the (God-less) theory of evolution still persists. One major reason is that many people have a sort of vested interest in this theory. Jobs would be lost, loss of face would result, text books would need to be eliminated or revised.”
• Evolutionist Richard Lewontin in The New York Review, January, 1997, page 31: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of the failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenom-enal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adher-ence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explan-ations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the unin-itiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
• Columnist George Caylor once in-terviewed a molecular biologist for an article entitled “The Biologist,” that ran on February 17, 2000, in The Ledger, (Lynchburg VA) and is in part reprint-ed here as a conversation between “G” (Caylor) and “J” (the scientist). We join the piece in the middle of a discussion about the complexity of human code.
G: “Do you believe that the informa-tion evolved?”
J: “George, nobody I know in my profession believes it evolved. It was engineered by genius beyond genius, and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book! Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise.”
G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”
J: “No. I just say it evolved. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold onto two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures-everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”
G: “I hate to say it, but that sounds intellect- ually dishonest.”
J: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the elephant in the living room.”
G: “What elephant?”
J: “Creation design. It’s like an elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”
u Dr. John Morris, president of the Institute for Creation Research: “[Scientists] see the evidence for creation, and they see it clearly, but peer pressure, financial considerations, political correctness, and a religious commitment to naturalism force them to look the other way and insist they see nothing. And so, the illogical origins myth of modern society perpetuates itself.”
"
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
zeffur
zeffur: re: "theHating: im just waiting for him to actually back up his claims"

Gotta love those burden of proof shifting trolls. If I claimed there exists a creature that I call a pig duck, the burden of proof is on me to prove such a creature exists--otherwise I'm just a stinking quack. Likewise, the evolutionizers have NOT provided sufficient credible evidence to demonstrate that their beliefs are true. They've co-opted biology into their shtick as a way to mix truth with their untruths to make it harder for some people to disentangle & understand how life came to exist & thrive on earth.

Put simply, all that we see in the fossil record are mostly extinct creatures that could not survive the conditions on earth during their time of existence. Those that did survive were a small subset of all that have ever existed or that still live on today through their progeny. Cataclysms such as space object collisions with earth, massive volcanic activity, etc are responsible for massive impacts on earth, massive weather & climate changes, & massive amounts of dead creatures.

Evolutionists seek to try to understand & explain the fossil evidence. They set their scope to only include natural & material things & forces. Their theory is short-sighted because of those limits. Most people believe in a higher power (whether God, aliens thought of as gods, etc) for how life came to exist on earth. My personal guess is that there were multiple times such beings brought life to earth to seed earth.

I also see no rational reason to accept the ToE or evolution as it has NO credible evidence to explain how life came to exist from non life. It has no credible evidence to prove life evolved via natural reproduction of any kind or via mutations to creatures with more complex dna (which would have had to occur for their goo-2-modern creatures claims to be true).

Evolution's "natural selection" is unimportant--it is phrase-noise created by evolutionists. Survival & reproduction are all that really matters. Whatever factors that lead to survival & reproduction are the only important factors.

Even though adaptation is a real thing--it is less important than evolutionists would like us to understand. If, for example, 2% of the humans in an area survive a major drought & famine then their genes will be passed on (but so will the genes of those that died because they are within their genome) to their offspring. Initially, a greater percentage of the population, who were able to survive with less water & energy, will be the majority of the population, but gradually, as the population increases, more of the other genetic diversity will return to the population. Natural biology is predisposed to maintain biological diversity--even for rare traits. The important thing to remember is that there is NO credible evidence that natural selection or adaptation EVER leads to ANY evolution of ANY other KIND of creature--genetic stasis prevents it.

Their next major unproven evolution claim is about mutations that lead to evolution. Most mutations lead to death, birth defects, or degeneration (including infertility)--not increased dna complexity. Since evolutionists have NO real credible evidence to definitively & conclusively show that ANY mutations have EVER led to evolution (via increased DNA complexity), they have NO valid basis for such a claim/assumption.

And so it goes for everything else that evolutionists have falsely claimed to be true. If anyone disagrees, I'd be happy to objectively consider any evidence they can bring to light to prove their assertions.

Given that the 2 pillars of their foundationless pseudo-scientific belief system are apparently false, one has to wonder why it is that they cling to their fairy tale beliefs. I suggest it is because of fear, greed, & deception to maintain that greed--so much so that they need to indoctrinate (brainwash) children to believe their rubbish is true. Good people everywhere should demand that the unproven myth of evolution be removed from every school as it is quite reasonably untrue & a waste of valuable time & even more valuable brain cells.
(Edited by zeffur)
1 year ago Report
1
zeffurpussy
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 year ago)
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: http://bfy.tw/IEQ
It's sweet when 2 gay old men get together. Bless yas bobbi n zeffie
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
1 year ago Report
3
Angry Beaver
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 year ago)
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: I see the love between you and zeffie, that's too cute
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Zeffur "TheHating " She has never bother to even try to justify her belief in ToE. Like all those that believe in pseudoscience ', they cannot come here with any real evidence. They don't have anything other than assumptions.
All they really have is just the assumption, and opinion that Micro is suppose to become Macroevolution. Which sounds good' until you look at the facts and evidence. The most convincing evidence against ToE ', IMO ToE death can be attributed all of the microbiological roadblocks to trans species development .. If ToE had one reliable Microbiology avenue ', their case could be at lease plausible'
even without any observable evidence.
The one reason they don't look like compete for fools is that academia approves and promotes their ignorance, faith, and opinions

IMO the Argument can never be resolved due to the fact' that the only two theories are both based in faith .. I do believe that evolutionist has far more faith than Creationist.
Because: DNA and the complexity of life has clearly and scientifically proven ToE false!
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver:

Cue: incomprehensible rant mocking alternate points of view
(Edited by Angry Beaver)
1 year ago Report
1
zeffur
zeffur: @Blackshoes:

Below is an interesting exchange that I had a while back when I commented on an 'evidence of evolution' video on YT (which btw was completely ridiculous in its assertions). One of he shills even tried claiming that they've got it all figured out how dinosaur scales evolved into bird feathers--lol Check his links for what he thinks is convincing evidence.

And their vitriol is top notch...lol Poor monkey wannabe descendants...

=====
zeffur
4 months ago
This video is total BS. Evolution is an indefensible pseudoscience that has NO credible evidence to show evolutionary transitions between creatures.

Here's a good link to see a running debate that shows science has proven evolution to be false:
Topic: Science
2
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago (edited)
@gcmgome "Listen up asshole, "

Accurate description of this childish idiot to say the least.

"Are you really so fucking clueless that you believe an obscure and poorly written article posted by some science wannabe could possibly pose any type of threat to a robust scientific theory?"

The answer is obviously "yes." This emotionally immature cretin makes it obvious that he couldn't care less about actual scientific facts and evidence. I, for myself, will just move on and leave him to his playpen. Some people are so stupid and inherently ridiculous that there is no point in wasting time on them.
1
gcmgome
gcmgome
4 months ago
@Ricahrd P'Brien - An equal waste of time was to be found in reading the information at the link this numbnut posted in his opening comment. It was so poorly written and at about halfway through the first segment this line told the reader all they needed to know about the author:
"Stressful situations would have been widespread in the centuries after a global flood."
Our protagonist seems to be an AiG stooge.
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago
@gcmgomen Yep.
zeffur
4 months ago
@gcmgome You moron--there are both sides to the debate posted in that forum from multiple contributors. Grow a clue before you embarrass yourself further, ffs.
Jani Veija
Jani Veija
4 months ago
Except fossil records and DNA which clearly show the transitions between species. Oh, and the fishes in Australia that are growing partial legs .
zeffur
4 months ago (edited)
@Jani Veija Wrong! The opinions & assumptions on fossils aren't definitive & they are considered by many people to be purely biased naturalistic atheist nonsense. In addition, DNA cannot be used to prove evolution ancestry. Having similar groups of genes doesn't mean they are related--it merely means each species has similar genes. Humans & chimps have 95% similar DNA, but as you can see neither one 'evolved' from the other and the 'common ancestor' claim is purely speculative--not definitive.

re: " Oh, and the fishes in Australia that are growing partial legs ." Let's allow Japan to continue to dump nuclear waste into the ocean & not pretend such an unnatural event isn't the cause of Australia's poor fish problems.

Nature doesn't turn non life into life & DNA--there is ZERO credible evidence that such a thing has EVER occurred.
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago
Macroevolution (i.e., actual speciation events) is an observed fact not only in the fossil record but in "real time" as well. Hence, it is a bit ridiculous to state that something that is actually observed is "impossible'" What next, arguing that radio waves are impossible?


"Critics of evolution often fall back on the maxim that no one has ever seen one species split into two. While that's clearly a straw man, because most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur, it's also not true. We have seen species split, and we continue to see species diverging every day."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

UC-San Diego: "Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask....“With these experiments, no one can doubt whether speciation occurs,” Meyer added."
zeffur
4 months ago (edited)
​@Ricahrd P'Brien re: "...most speciation takes far longer than our lifespan to occur..." There is no credible evidence that your statement is true. No one knows how long or how many mutations or other genetic changes would be required to show an evolutionary morphological event will take place. Furthermore, no evolution scientist can directly & positively prove ANY mutation/s have led to any major evolution changes--it's all pure assumptions & opinions offered as 'science'--which it most definitely is not--it's pseudo-scientific blather being passed off as science. Just listen to the words used in the video or offered by real scientist--'they believe' or 'we think' or 'it appears'--none of it is solid science--it is all speculative.

re: ""Biologists have discovered that the evolution of a new species can occur rapidly enough for them to observe the process in a simple laboratory flask" That's not macro-evolution--those changes are still microbes & will never be anything other than microbes. Think of the huge number of evolutionary changes (improvements) that would be necessary for mankind to evolve from primordial soup to now--there is no credible evidence that can be shown which proves such a thing has ever happened. What you see offered as ancestors of mankind are merely different species that are extinct--everything else is assumed by evolutionists.

Research "Piltdown man" to see how that fraud was perpetrated. We were told for ~40 years that a chimp with filed down teeth was the missing link. Then they offered up Lucy--which was another fiasco & fraud. Currently they are misusing DNA snippets to make false claims. It's all BS. Evolutionists are becoming extinct as more people begin to realize the indefensible nature of their subjective & biased naturalistic claims.
Angelmou
Angelmou
4 months ago
@zeffur
"No one knows how long or how many mutations or other genetic changes would be required to show an evolutionary morphological event will take place."
When you are unable to read DNA, you neither can understand gene regulatory networks -
For example scale to feather transformation:
https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40851-017-0085-4/MediaObjects/40851_2017_85_Fig3_HTML.gif
and
http://dev.biologists.org/content/develop/132/7/1499/F2.large.jpg
Where dinoscales are deformed and recycelt for feather growth.
The BMP2 and SHH regulatory sequence is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Randall_Widelitz/publication/11026627/figure/fig2/AS:281243066355734@1444064980733/Models-of-feather-branching-and-evolution-of-feather-formsa-Roles-of-noggin-BMP4-Shh.png to the BMP4 you see in the photos above.
Here for complex double rachis: https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14139
Here for the keratin (a bit down in the study): https://academic.oup.com/gbe/article/10/10/2572/5086307?
Those are examples of linked cis regulatory gene copy errors like BMP2 scale bump to BMP4 base for the feather quill to the actual rachis and the Barb duplication to have the hooklett branching later as repurposement. Glidingfly to flutterfly.
That is also the reason how feathered feet/feet muff in birds grow from scales here photos:
https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:12115%2Felife-12115-fig6-v1.tif/full/full/0/default.jpg
and
https://iiif.elifesciences.org/lax:12115%2Felife-12115-fig3-v1.tif/full/1500,/0/default.jpg
By cis regulatory gene shifts in 2 different species pigeons and chickens: https://elifesciences.org/articles/12115?
And the scale to featherforms you also have with feather muffs.

Before you understand this, you need to understand basics in DNA. You could not show me you are able to read it.
1
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago (edited)
@zeffur Your reply is unresponsive and nonsensical. Macroevolution by mutation is an observed fact as I have demonstrated. How about some more examples?
“Speciation of numerous plants, both angiosperms and ferns (such as hemp nettle, primrose, radish and cabbage, and various fern species) has been seen via hybridization and polyploidization since the early 20th century. Several speciation events in plants have been observed that did not involve hybridization or polyploidization (such as maize and S. malheurensis).

Some of the most studied organisms in all of genetics are the Drosophila species, which are commonly known as fruitflies. Many Drosophila speciation events have been extensively documented since the seventies. Speciation in Drosophila has occurred by spatial separation, by habitat specialization in the same location, by change in courtship behavior, by disruptive natural selection, and by bottlenecking populations (founder-flush experiments), among other mechanisms.

Several speciation events have also been seen in laboratory populations of houseflies, gall former flies, apple maggot flies, flour beetles, Nereis acuminata (a worm), mosquitoes, and various other insects. Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.

Speciation has also been observed in mammals. Six instances of speciation in house mice on Madeira within the past 500 years have been the consequence of only geographic isolation, genetic drift, and chromosomal fusions. A single chromosomal fusion is the sole major genomic difference between humans and chimps, and some of these Madeiran mice have survived nine fusions in the past 500 years (Britton-Davidian et al. 2000).”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations

How about some more? "The rapid physical evolution also sparked changes in the lizard's social and behavioral structure, he said. Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said."
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution_2.html

How about some more factual observations of evolution? "Rapid Evolution on the Galapagos Islands Leads to a New Species of Finch"
https://www.evolving-science.com/environment/rapid-evolution-galapagos-islands-leads-new-species-finch-00501

How about some more factual observations of macroevolution? "The world is changing fast, and evolution is not staying behind. The curious case of a new species of flower that evolved in the north isles of Scotland shows that evolution can create new species in a matter of years."

"But what really makes the Shetland monkeyflower special is its number of chromosomes. It has twice the number of chromosomes as its ancestor (14 vs. 28 pairs), and exemplifies the evolution of a new type of plant through genome doubling.

The doubling of its genome also produces some subtle but important differences in the way the new plant looks. The Shetland monkeyflower has larger leaves, larger flowers, and takes longer to flower than its ancestor. Having twice the amount of DNA in their cells, seems to have some immediate repercussions.
https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/how-quickly-can-new-species-evolve/
zeffur
4 months ago (edited)
@Ricahrd P'Brien None of your examples prove anything more than natural genetics has a wide variation of possible outcomes. If you dug up every human skeleton from the past 10k years, you would see every kind of variation that is possible in humans. If you cherry picked all the odd/weird things that you would see, you could make up all sorts of stories about how this one must have evolved from that one.

Plants cross-breed all the time. You can't use any sort of plant as an example of evolution--in the end their descendants will always be plant--not insects, cats, etc.
Jani Veija
Jani Veija
4 months ago
@zeffur Does it hurt to be that stupid? 🙄
zeffur
4 months ago
@Jani Veija I wouldn't know--but, I'm fairly certain you probably have experience with such pain. How does it feel??
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago
@zeffur Evolution proceeds by speciation and subsequent speciation (aka "macroevolution". That is the theory. Period. This is also an observed fact. Period. These are not examples of mere variation you incredible half-wit, but the observed creation of new species. A "species' is a morphologically distinct population that has become genetically isolated (i.e., its members can only successfully breed with one another). That is what evolution describes: How species diversification occurs. I have no idea what you think "evolution" describes as you seem quite confused.
For example, from one of the articles that describes the observed creation of a new species via mutation.:

"While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species."
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/

The change from a unicellular organism to a multi-cellular one is not mere "variation." A doubling of the number of chromosomes, or chromosome fusion, that creates a new species is not mere "variation."

Evolution is considered to be a well beyond proven fact based on truly overwhelming evidence and is accepted by such by basically 100% of the relevant scientific community including its many religious members. For example, just the existence of endogenous retroviruses proves common ancestry beyond ANY doubt and that is just one small slice of the overwhelming evidence. Evolution is an observed fact.

"This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

My conclusion: You are both poorly educated and emotionally immature, a person too childish to accept demonstrated reality.
zeffur
4 months ago
@Ricahrd P'Brien "macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.""

That ^^ is 100% true. Maybe one day you'll mature & grow up enough to understand why it is true.
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago
@zeffur Look, to be blunt, I am not really interested in wasting any more of my time in continuing to provide beyond well verified scientific facts and evidence from multiple independent science sources to some self-identified half-wit who makes it clear that he places zero value on such.

See ya, you juvenile loser!!
zeffur
4 months ago
@Ricahrd P'Brien Glad you've given up. Your shtick wasn't convincing anyway. Feel free to continue to delude yourself about evolution fairy tales.
2
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago (edited)
@zeffur Examples of observed significant macroevolution events: The transformation of unicellular organisms into multicellular ones.

Green algae and bacteria have been classified as speciated due to change from unicellularity to multicellularity and due to morphological changes from short rods to long rods, all the result of selection pressures.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html#speciations

"Multicellularity involves quite a shift: instead of each single cell out for itself, cells living together in one organism must divide tasks and share energy and resources....But increasing evidence suggests that it might have been easier than we thought.

Research examining closely related single cellular and multicellular algae shows that some single celled organisms today have the genetic equipment to achieve multicellularity... Moreover, in some remarkable experiments with single celled yeast, researchers were able to create conditions that resulted in yeast cells forming elaborate multicellular structures, with certain cells performing specialized roles. Moreover, these complex structures, that resembled snowflakes, were able to replicate."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/06/28/evolution-of-multicellular-life-might-have-been-easier-than-we-thought/#fd29bbb5a2de

Evolution makes predictions about what you should observe across a wide area of science: morphology, biogeography, biochemistry, field observations, lab experiments, embryology, molecular biology, DNA, and, of course, the fossil record. When you collect and analyze those observations they uniformly and repeatedly support the hypothesis and have so for many decades. Remember these are multiple INDEPENDENT lines of inquiry that all converge on the SAME conclusion.

Now either GROW UP or run along and quit pestering people with your juvenile nonsense. Evolution is taught as a proven fact at basically all non-fundamentalist Christian colleges because it is beyond a well proven fact.
zeffur
4 months ago
​@Ricahrd P'Brien None of what you've shown proves such minor changes mean anything significant in the long run. You certainly can believe what ever you want, but I'm not convinced by your presentation. I am impressed though that you put together such a list in such a short time.
Kudos to you on that!

Evolution also has no credible coherent position on the origin of life. They side step it repeatedly & claim it isn't in their purview--which is just a cop out because they know life & DNA cannot come from non life via natural forces & conditions.
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago
@zeffur " I am impressed though that you put together such a list in such a short time. "

It is not hard. It is easy to Google for sites that list many examples of observed macroevolution that you can just copy (which I did). Try it some time if you are interested (which you obviously are not).
zeffur
4 months ago
@Ricahrd P'Brien It was interesting to read, however, I don't consider it macro-evolution--I consider it simple biological variations. ymmv
Jani Veija
Jani Veija
4 months ago
@zeffur Some day you wake from your bubble. Don't be scared of reality when you do.
zeffur
4 months ago
@Jani Veija I'm all about verifiable & testable truth--I'm not impressed with baseless assumptions & opinions being passed off as science. You might believe such feeble attempts--but, I require more to be convinced.
zeffur
4 months ago (edited)
@Jani Veija And when we encounter aliens & they finally explain all life on earth was brought to earth & evolution is nothing but the wishful thinking of naturalism proponents--will you be be prepared to abandon your delusions??
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago
@zeffur "It was interesting to read, however, I don't consider it macro-evolution--I consider it simple biological variations. ymmv "

Once again, you obtuse moron, they are new species not "variations" within a species.
Ricahrd P'Brien
Ricahrd P'Brien
4 months ago (edited)
@zeffur Dr. Francis Collins, the head of the NIH and a devout evangelical Christian:

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things...

...It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that. "

In other words: "Quit acting like an ignorant child rather than an educated, mature adult who has the emotional maturity to accept reality. Your immature behavior embarrasses other more emotionally stable and rational people of faith."
zeffur
4 months ago (edited)
@Ricahrd P'Brien He's entitled to his opinion just as you are. I don't see any credible evidence that is convincing to me. And don't act like you're in a position to tell me to grow up. I'm quite likely older than you are.
gcmgome
gcmgome
4 months ago
Another foolish person who thinks it is a reasonable conclusion that the entire global scientific community is wrong about just this one branch of science. The article at the questionable source you link to is entitled: "Science Disproves Evolution" ...and you have the gall to refer to this video as "total BS". Science actually adds more corroborating evidence to the validity of evolution every hour of every day.
Here is a bet that I am certain to win....I bet that you have very little science education.
zeffur
4 months ago (edited)
@gcmgome Have you read all of the posts in that forum & viewed all of the credible evidence provided in it?? Of course you haven't. Get back to me when you consider all of the evidence.
(Edited by zeffur)
1 year ago Report
1
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Zeffur As usual Evolutionists endlessly go on about * Microevolution never showing any evidence of Marco whatsoever !

* No one disagrees with Microevolution ! Our contention is that the assumption ,opinions,and belief of Micro becoming Macroevolution has been clearly and has scientifically proven false ..

"Science actually adds more corroborating evidence to the validity of evolution every hour of every day."

People who state such things' clearly are bias and often ignorance of any real science !

Notice he doesn't show any of this so called new evidence ? Also every bit of new reseach , observation ,and science to date ,from Darwin on "has only refuted Evolutionary paradigms !
That's why Evolutionist have been constantly changing ToE to fit they're beliefs for over a 100 years !

I really believe that Charles Darwin : If here today' he would recant his theory in lieu of all the scientific discovery to date !
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: Frankly, I think even micro-evolution is nonsense in the way they misuse it. So is the way they call everything a new species.

My position is that there is a wide range of biological variations that can occur naturally (e.g. wolves to dogs)--but, there is NO evidence than any canis creature will ever become anything other than some variant of a canis creature KIND.

The notion that when a creature changes enough to not be able to breed with others of it's KIND is a stepping stone to a new KIND of creature is unproven rubbish--it's pure speculation as far as all of the evidence that I've seen.

My position is that 'evolution' is utter rubbish--I consider it a complete fraud. I think science taught properly would show the actual facts about the wide range of biological variations that are possible within each KIND & leave the speculations completely out of the lessons. Teaching 'beliefs' with facts is harmful to developing minds as it will confuse them & lead them to think things 'that aren't proven to be true' are true.
(Edited by zeffur)
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: I agree "within a evolutionist twisted mind and theology, then claim it's all microevolution .. Yet: IMO :that's the only way they can justify their faith , opinions, and assumptions in a pesudoscience. Half a lie is still a lie !
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
1
zeffur
zeffur: This is interesting:



Still never going to be anything but a Felidae (feline family/kind) creature, but, it is interesting to see what is possible & how sometimes they need to go to the 4th to the 6th generations to get beyond infertility problems in earlier generations.
1 year ago Report
0
Mongaret24
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 year ago)
Blackshoes
(Post deleted by Blackshoes 1 year ago)
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Zeffur Interbreeding and the Adaptational selective breeding has been going on for over 5000 years . Anyone involved in taxonomy will tell there a limit to how far you can breed . No matter how many generation you work with .. this is due to Genetic road block that cannot add more information .. Species never changes into another species !
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: I don't doubt that there are limits to ANY type of natural or breeding reproduction--dogs or cats will never become pigs--or any other KIND of creature--there is NO proof otherwise.

Which is why natural selection (i.e. natural reproduction) & man-controlled selective breeding are not valid defenses for 'evolution'--yet evolutionists trod them out like they are--the results of both are always just a natural genetic variation of the creatures--that remains the same KIND of creature--period!..it doesn't matter how many generations are produced--it will never morph into another kind of creature.

Mutation has been their magic card--but, they have ZERO credible evidence to prove ANY natural mutation/s have EVER led to ANY morphological changes that constitute KIND-level evolution.
(Edited by zeffur)
1 year ago Report
1
SandraLee62
SandraLee62: thats not true I have a dogcat
1 year ago Report
0
Mongaret24
Mongaret24: Blackshoes: Do you have any manners or integrity ? <----- Nope
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: Last chance Justme ! Either fly right 'or don't bother commenting here . It's my sand box 'and I enjoy everyone comments whether they agree or disagree.. However trolls that just come here to throw sand are not welcome here ! I have zero tolerated for fools
1 year ago Report
0
Blackshoes
Blackshoes: The Interesting thing about ToE It clearly predicts inbreeding as a venue for different species. Yet: they all dead end sooner or later! Never have we seen any form of new species whatsoever! ToE doesn't work!

Dogs all reman dogs never have we seen any type of major change into a cow or tree . Nor even the suggested change from a dog to a squirrel.
(Edited by Blackshoes)
1 year ago Report
0