Fallacies of Evolution

Your claim that life is void of intelligent design is only a statement of a faith you choose to embrace. There is no proof. Get off your high horse.

 

Quote me making any such claim.

Now, quit dodging and admit you made a baseless and unsupportable claim, or provide the evidence to support it.

 

First a disclaimer....I have not read the entire thread. I am a scientist but not a geneticist. I do know embryology including comparative embryology and anatomy. I've had graduate level genetics. While not my field I've studied human evolution over the last 2+ million years.

Thinking that evolution is just an unproven theory is common. You can't really ask for a single bit of information to 'prove' it but you can with study see it in many disciplines over a vast period of time.

If you desire proof I would offer to you the evolution of superbugs with multiple resistance to antibiotics. This has happened over my lifetime. You can look at the evolution of the influenza virus which mutates almost yearly. Look at the data of genetic code of the Spanish Influenza of 1918 taken from frozen victims and compare it to today's virus. What made such a deadly virus it targeted young healthy specimens who could mount the most vigorous immune response....one which led to their untimely deaths often overnight? What are the genetic changes to the tuberculosis bacterium which gives it resistance to multiple antibiotics? Those are rhetorical questions as the data is out there for any interested to peruse.

Look at fruit flies and their genome and see for yourself what created dwarf wings etc.

Your skepticism would make you a good scientist. We must always question especially dogma.

But you cannot deny all the evidence unless you educate yourself and remain open to the answers that 'evolve' from your study.

 

Although you don't say it outright, the objections of the 'evoskeptics' on here are essentially the same as you would find on any Creationist forum or website and there comes a point where the duck has waddled and quacked such that you know it's a duck. The quote mines the fallacious reasoning and the misrepresentation are obvious to anyone who has spent time debating this stuff on the internet. Here are some guide lines for you...

1. Copy and paste routinely from Creationist websites (like we haven't got search engines as well).
2. Quote mines scientists and in particular populist science articles or books (rarely if ever quote mines actual scientific papers).
3. Repeats obvious Creationist memes that were debunked a thousand times before.
4. Gish gallops between topics.
5. Attacks the philosophical basis of science rather than the science.
6. Treats science and atheism as synonyms, and asserts a false dichotomy between science and theism.
7. Labels science as materialistic (well d'uh) and tries to wedge metaphysics into it.

And more.

If you find yourself doing any number of these then you are most likely a Creationist, a philosopher who likes ignorance as an argument or just trying to get the rise out of people.

 

You can see its FAILURE in many disciplines over a vast period of time, beginning with Darwin's time. This is not possible when the "theory" is valid.

You conflate and confuse "adaptation" with "evolution" in the Darwinian sense.
All the experiments to "prove" evolution through mutations have failed. Flies can't fly. Bacteria haven't become amoebas.

You SAY "we must always question" but then you never ever question this archaic tautology of mutation>"selection".
It's trivial and states absolutely nothing if you analyze it. They "survive because they're fittest and they're fittest because they survive."
This is on the level of sociology, or art, not science.

 

Fairy Tales
Princess kisses frog > Prince

Bacteria + lots of time > Blue Whales

 

Moronic delusions:
Imaginary sky fairy snaps it's fingers and poofs everything into existence.

 

Apparently I'm the only person who's not denying reality and who has got a clue.

 

We've gone over it and you still can't produce any real evidence of gradually transitioning
species.

And you believe this without any evidence to support it? This information, especially since it's
supposedly done slowly, should be in abundant in the fossil record yet there is nothing.

Not only are there no magical barriers there is no evidence to show species becoming different
species.

In reality there is no hard evidence to support evolution. As you've shown, there is only
extrapolation and artistic renderings.

 

Yet, many people more intelligent and educated than you see the evidence and understand how it works. The evidence IS there, you just refuse to believe it.

 

There is no evidence. If there was those so-called more intelligent and educated people would
provide it.

Please have them provide the evidence of gradually transitioning species. They haven't been
able to do so, or are you refusing to accept to believe it? How can you believe something that
doesn't exist? All you and your more intelligent and educated (cough) have is extrapolation
with artistic renderings.

Please, put up some hard undeniable evidence.

 

We just watched the National Geographic program on Alaska and its wildlife. Fun and informative show.
They showed an Alaskan ground squirrel, which hibernates 8 months, the longest of any animal on earth.
During this time, its heartbeat and respiration slow to extremely low rates, as its core body temperature drops
to a few degrees above freezing.

Yet another fallacy of evolution is that this animal VERY SLOWLY changed from living a normal daily life to
hibernating for 8 months, with barely a pulse or breath of air, while its core temperature dropped as well.
Please explain, you proponents of Darwinian evolution, the mechanism for just this one specie's "evolution".

AFTER you have done so, we will proceed to the next example, a Roufous Hummingbird.

 

{QUOTE="Prunepicker, post: 1067427947, member: 66214"]Apparently I'm the only person who's not denying reality and who has got a clue.[/QUOTE]

 

Apparently you forget that you posted links to articles that support the very thing you argue against; evolution.

 

When you grasp the fact that an organism is the result of genetic code. We may be able to argue. You change the code you change the organism. The genetic code is the alphabet of life. Change the spelling and you change the organism.

 

If you truly wish to debunk evolution then you must arm yourself with facts from many disciplines and study it long enough to evolve an understanding. Some of us have studied biology, physiology, biochemistry, embryology, genetics most of our lives. We've studied those branching disciplines including comparative ones as well as paleontology. You don't have to spend a lifetime as some have but you can read summaries. Your problem appears to be a false narrative of God or evolution. This is not necessary. There's room at the top for God but only if you allow it. You cannot wish away billions of bits of data that fit so well together because it appears to upset your preconceived notion of the order of things.

 

Stop generalizing about how brilliant you are, and say something substantive, for a change, you and your friends.

Since you pretend to know so VERY much, tell everyone the range of pKa values, and the reason therefor.

Then tell everyone what you know about the space of hemoglobin, and why it is said to breathe.
How does hemoglobin violate LeChatelier's Principle? Be specific, Mister Biochemistry.

 

I am not a biologist nor do I pretend to be an expert on evolution so I will not be providing you any evidence of transitioning species. If you want evidence, take a biology class at your local college. The issue is not evidence of transitioning species, any expert on evolution can show you more than you can imagine. The real issue is your distrust of science, and I find this appalling. Science has done more to lift the humans species out of the darkness of ignorance than all the religions in the world combined. The device you are using to read this is a product of science. The dinner you enjoyed tonight is a product of science.

What is the funniest part is that you and the creationists like you want your beliefs to be backed by science because deep down you know that science has authority, that without science, your beliefs are no better than myths. Unfortunately, you cannot have it both ways. If you want science on your side, you have to play by its rules because science does not play favorites. It isn't swayed by your superstitions or your feelings. Now, if that doesn't work for you then may I suggest getting a horse and buggy and moving to Lancaster PA. I heard there is a group there you might just fit in with.

 

Imperfect replicants + selective environments + billions of years > Life evolved to survive that environment

It's only theists that need authoritarian lords, ladies, kings and queens to populate their narrative.

 

I have a fantasy. After people die there is a period of time where they continue to have perception. This brief period of time lasts just long enough for the believers to realize there is nothing.

 

The premise of the OP has been discredited many, many pages ago.
Here is an excerpt from the OP

If you really want to stick to the OP, just show one scholarly textbook that claims Correlation proves Causation. USFAN couldn't. Now it's your turn.

 

WOW! That's a long time to study one subject.

 

Fairy Tale
God makes everything
God destroys (almost) everything
God sends god to impregnate a virgin thereby creating another god
God lets god get killed
God takes god into heaven
God and god and god will again destroy (almost) everything
Those not destroyed by God and god and god will spend eternity in unimaginable boredom being kissed on the cheek periodically by dear old auntie mabel

 

If that were to happen. I would be no worse off than you. I too have a fantasy. We see God in all His glory. Those of us who have sought after Him during our lives will be drawn to Him and reunited with those we have loved and longed to see again. Those that denied Him will not be able to face Him and will go there own way... alone.
True Narcissism,