Clear evidence for evolution

[NeoSeminole]

loco, the website is beyond bias. I will inform you that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific. You see evolution has mechanisms like natural selection, mutations (point, base pair, insertion etc), things like genetic drift etc.. which all clearly show how we evolve. This is what makes the theory float per se. Then we have genetics, homology, nested hierachies, biology etc.. which all point to evolution, combined with a mechanism we have a sound theory explained with facts.

What you have is a conclusion, GOD did it but no mechanisms. How does he create? when animals adapt via natural selection is god intervening? is so, how so? Why, when? How can we prove this? how does an immaterial being interact with the material? this and many more questions. The answer to all the questions and every other one surrounding intelligent design are, We dont know.

but we have a conclusion. Also since things share DNA why would god make us special if we share genetics with things like lowly pigs etc.. Why can animals like the bonobo preform tasks indicative of increasing intelligence and a plastic brain?

the common designer explanation brings up more questions then it answers and provides a hypercomplex solution to a complex task. FAIL.

[loco]

Ha ha ha...very funny, NeoSeminole!  I'm glad I'm the blue guy.  I like blue.   

And this is coming from the same genius who compares Macroevolution to gravity and acts all tough debating Onetimehard.   

[loco]

loco, the website is beyond bias. I will inform you that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific. You see evolution has mechanisms like natural selection, mutations (point, base pair, insertion etc), things like genetic drift etc.. which all clearly show how we evolve. This is what makes the theory float per se. Then we have genetics, homology, nested hierachies, biology etc.. which all point to evolution, combined with a mechanism we have a sound theory explained with facts.

What you have is a conclusion, GOD did it but no mechanisms. How does he create? when animals adapt via natural selection is god intervening? is so, how so? Why, when? How can we prove this? how does an immaterial being interact with the material? this and many more questions. The answer to all the questions and every other one surrounding intelligent design are, We dont know.

but we have a conclusion. Also since things share DNA why would god make us special if we share genetics with things like lowly pigs etc.. Why can animals like the bonobo preform tasks indicative of increasing intelligence and a plastic brain?

the common designer explanation brings up more questions then it answers and provides a hypercomplex solution to a complex task. FAIL.

Necrosis,
That website is "Answers in Genesis", one of the leading creationist organizations out there.  Of course they are beyond bias.  That is the point I was making to Oldschool Flip, that creationist take the same evidence and interpret it differently.  You think that this evidence is going to weaken their faith, but instead it strengthen their faith.

Creationists accept evolutionary change at and below the level of species.  Creationists do not accept evolutionary change above the level of species.  It has never been observed, tested or proved.  It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.  Creationists believe neither that humans are animals nor that humans share a common ancestor with any animal.
 
I agree that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific, but we as humans do just that, whether theist or atheist.  Science is not bias, theist or atheist.  Science does not have a world view.  But humans, whether theist, agnostic or atheist are bias and do have a world view.  Richard Dawkins has said that his aim is to kill religion through the theory of evolution.  He has said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."
 
Dr. Georgia Purdom for example understands very well the similarities between human and chimp DNA, but she disagrees that it points to a common ancestor.
 
As for God and science...Sir Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are all good scientist who accepted evolution while being devout Christians as well, just to name a few.
 
By the way, according to some atheists(not you) here, tigers are native to Africa, chimpanzees are monkeys and humans have genetically nothing in common with lowly pigs.  And then they say Christians are ignorant and uneducated.

[NeoSeminole]

Ha ha ha...very funny, NeoSeminole!  I'm glad I'm the blue guy.  I like blue.

And this is coming from the same genius who compares Macroevolution to gravity and acts all tough debating Onetimehard.

educate yourself before opening your mouth. I said the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity can never be proven. So they are the same in that regard. Only an ignoramus would bring that up to try and discredit me. Also, show me where I acted "all tough" debating Onetimehard.

[NeoSeminole]

Creationists accept evolutionary change at and below the level of species.  Creationists do not accept evolutionary change above the level of species.  It has never been observed, tested or proved.  It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.  Creationists believe neither that humans are animals nor that humans share a common ancestor with any animal.

no matter how many times you've been corrected, you continue to spew the same bullshit. Evidence of speciation has been observed. Evolutionary theory makes predictions that have been tested and verified. Scientists have a better understanding of how evolution works than gravity. From now on, I will address you as "idiot" (or any other synonym of my choosing) every time I catch you spreading false information.

[loco]

educate yourself before opening your mouth. I said the theory of evolution and the theory of gravity can never be proven. So they are the same in that regard. Only an ignoramus would bring that up to try and discredit me. Also, show me where I acted "all tough" debating Onetimehard.

I said you compared the two, and you did.   

ugh, I already explained this earlier. In science, fact and theory are 2 different things. A theory can never become fact no matter how much evidence comes forth. Your insistence that evolution never occurred b/c it hasn't been proven merely reflects your ignorance on the subject. Gravity is also a scientific theory. I suppose you don't believe in gravity either b/c it hasn't been proven?

[loco]

no matter how many times you've been corrected, you continue to spew the same bullshit. Evidence of speciation has been observed. Evolutionary theory makes predictions that have been tested and verified. Scientists have a better understanding of how evolution works than gravity. From now on, I will address you as "idiot" (or any other synonym of my choosing) every time I catch you spreading false information.

Evolutionary change above the level of species has never been observed, tested or proved.  It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening...It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course."
- Richard Dawkins

I shall call you genius.   

[NeoSeminole]

I said you compared the two, and you did.

what was that suppose to prove? I already acknowledged that I compared evolution and gravity.

[NeoSeminole]

Evolutionary change above the level of species has never been observed, tested or proved.

edit: define "evolutionary change above the level of species."

It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.

you're confusing gravitational theory with facts. Sure, we can observe its effects on a daily basis but scientists still don't know how gravity works. What particles are responsible? Where do they come from? etc. 

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening...It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course." - Richard Dawkins

source? I'm guessing that Richard Dawkins was referring to evolution on a grand scale. No one observed our hominid ancestors evolve into homo sapiens, but evolutionists can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it occured.

I shall call you genius.

thank you.

[Necrosis]

Necrosis,
That website is "Answers in Genesis", one of the leading creationist organizations out there.  Of course they are beyond bias.  That is the point I was making to Oldschool Flip, that creationist take the same evidence and interpret it differently.  You think that this evidence is going to weaken their faith, but instead it strengthen their faith.

Creationists accept evolutionary change at and below the level of species.  Creationists do not accept evolutionary change above the level of species.  It has never been observed, tested or proved.  It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.  Creationists believe neither that humans are animals nor that humans share a common ancestor with any animal.
 
I agree that having a conclusion come before evidence in not scientific, but we as humans do just that, whether theist or atheist.  Science is not bias, theist or atheist.  Science does not have a world view.  But humans, whether theist, agnostic or atheist are bias and do have a world view.  Richard Dawkins has said that his aim is to kill religion through the theory of evolution.  He has said that as a scientist, he is very hostile toward a "rival doctrine."
 
Dr. Georgia Purdom for example understands very well the similarities between human and chimp DNA, but she disagrees that it points to a common ancestor.
 
As for God and science...Sir Ronald Fisher, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Arthur Peacocke, Russell Stannard, John Polkinghorne and Francis Collins are all good scientist who accepted evolution while being devout Christians as well, just to name a few.
 
By the way, according to some atheists(not you) here, tigers are native to Africa, chimpanzees are monkeys and humans have genetically nothing in common with lowly pigs.  And then they say Christians are ignorant and uneducated.

you can have your conclusion, but you have no mechanism and you have to explain the origins and all that accompanies this hyperintelligent being. Do you not see how this answer is unacceptable? i just want to make sure we are on the same wavelength

francis collins also beleives ID to be ridiculous and supports evolution, and offers evidence for it in his book. He refers to evolution as having overwhelming evidence, its quite obvious it does.

do you not think it wise to use reason? I mean god gave it to you for you to use, why would reason negate god if it has a purpose in his plan?

your theory intelligent design lacks all the attributes of a theory and is nothing but a hypothesis that is untestable. How is ID more then a mere hypothesis without anyway of proving?



"Dr. Georgia Purdom for example understands very well the similarities between human and chimp DNA, but she disagrees that it points to a common ancestor."'

sure he can think whatever he wants, what is his proof?

[liberalismo]

Ha ha ha...very funny, NeoSeminole!  I'm glad I'm the blue guy.  I like blue.   

And this is coming from the same genius who compares Macroevolution to gravity and acts all tough debating Onetimehard.   

Both established facts.

[liberalismo]

Evolutionary change above the level of species has never been observed, tested or proved.  It is not like gravity, which is observed and tested by all of us on a daily basis.

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening...It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course."
- Richard Dawkins

I shall call you genius.   

MacroEvolution has been indirectly observed and has also been proven. It is observed in the fossil record, in the genes of living organisms, in the trees of species, etc.

[loco]

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins

Who/what is this common ancestor chimpanzees and humans share?

Nobody is questioning gravity, but macroevolution is another story.
 
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists?  Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it?  They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth.  They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.

"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

[NeoSeminole]

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins

that quote is confusing b/c Dawkins doesn't specify which meaning he's using for evolution. Looking at its context, Dawkins was likely referring to evolution that takes place over millions of years. Here is another quote from the same interview which came before the one you posted.

"I mean I'm aware that the subject of evolution is, itself, controversial. I also feel that perhaps the fact that it's a sweep of four billion years helps to get things in perspective. I mean, this is the real long-term view of life."

Who/what is this common ancestor chimpanzees and humans share?

we don't know yet.

Nobody is questioning gravity, but macroevolution is another story.

wrong, many physicists question how gravity works and alternate theories have been proposed. We still haven't unified gravity with the other 3 fundamental forces of nature to create a unified "theory of everything" (TOE).
 

If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists?  Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it?  They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth.  They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.

define "evolutionary change above the level of species."

"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm

what is the purpose for this quote?

"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html

depends on his definition of "macroevolution." If he is referring to the evolution of new species, then he is incorrect.

"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html

the origin of life has nothing to do with how life evolves. Even if you disproved abiogenesis (which is impossible), it would do nothing to weaken the theory of evolution. Furthermore, the analogy of a tornado blowing through a junkyard randomly assembling a 747 airplane is flawed b/c it demands a specific outcome in a single step. This is not how evolution works. A more accurate analogy would be if millions of tornadoes are blowing through millions of junkyards simultaneously, and then stopped. The parts assembled that form part of a 747 from each junkyard are combined into new junkyards and the process repeated until you have a fully formed 747.

This site does a far better job of explaining how early proteins assembled themselves. Read "1.2.3 Statistical impossibility of proteins?"

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

"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution

good for him.

[liberalismo]

"Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." - Richard Dawkins
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript349_full.html#dawkins

Generally. But this only applies to large scale evolution, which we observe indirectly not directly. We observe small scale evolution everywhere.

Who/what is this common ancestor chimpanzees and humans share?

Not totally sure, but Sahelanthropus tchadensis is a good candidate.

Nobody is questioning gravity, but macroevolution is another story.

Nobody questions that either. Nobody worth listening to at least...

 

If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists?

Essentially it is. Only a very small % don't accept it. A few hundred biologists compared to the hundreds of thousands who accept it is not noteworthy.

 

  Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it?  They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth.  They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.

I would say that the number of mainstream, well respected non-creationists biologists who deny evolution is probably in the single digits, if that.