Rejecting evolution with science...

[DJ...]

You have been told to stop spreading these lies.

Stop assuming to know what other people have been told. I've been told no such thing by anyone, as I haven't perpetuated any lies.

You on the other hand - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/search.php?searchid=23485871

By extension, every argument you have states that science disproves evolution, considering the statements made are based on agreed science.

So contribute properly, object rationally, stop accusing people of being liars when they're not, or if you can't handle this like an adult, fsck off...

EDIT:

Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology
Ronald R. West, PhD paleoecology (sp?) and geology, Assistant Professor of Paleobiology
Err.. I'd go with the experts here.

So what the **** about it?

How cute. Last time I used the f-bomb you reported me and tried to get an infraction out of it. I'll be the better man here and leave this one be. That's one...

It's you people that always introduces schit so NO!

You continually report people for rude language. As confirmed by a mod to me. So why do you continue doing it to others? This statement was followed up by:

then first take out the balk from your eye.

ROFL, hypocrite...

Bull ****ing ****. Stop lying through your teeth.

GO wash that mouth out, little boy...

I can carry on if you like or you can once and for all state your fscking case. I've really had enough of you trolling every PD and science thread claiming that everyone else is a liar and you're the only bastion of truth. Either state your case, or fsck off now. Your trolling has got to either come to an end, or evolve into actual debate at some point...

 

[Swa]

Stop assuming to know what other people have been told. I've been told no such thing by anyone, as I haven't perpetuated any lies.

You on the other hand - http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/search.php?searchid=23485871

By extension, every argument you have states that science disproves evolution, considering the statements made are based on agreed science.

So contribute properly, object rationally, stop accusing people of being liars when they're not, or if you can't handle this like an adult, fsck off...

On the contrary it's you who keep repeating it without actually showing where I made such a claim anywhere. I told you to back it up or shut up. Now it's become every argument suddenly. If you've listened to anything you'd know it's actually both unprovable and not disprovable because it's set up like that. There isn't any conceivable observation or experiment that can potentially disprove it. It's therefor complete hogwash as in not even wrong!

EDIT:



How cute. Last time I used the f-bomb you reported me and tried to get an infraction out of it. I'll be the better man here and leave this one be. That's one...



You continually report people for rude language. As confirmed by a mod to me. So why do you continue doing it to others? This statement was followed up by:



ROFL, hypocrite...



GO wash that mouth out, little boy...

I can carry on if you like or you can once and for all state your fscking case. I've really had enough of you trolling every PD and science thread claiming that everyone else is a liar and you're the only bastion of truth. Either state your case, or fsck off now. Your trolling has got to either come to an end, or evolve into actual debate at some point...

I don't know what you're babbling on about. None of those were disguised or used any weird letters to get the word through. That's presumably why the filter is there. I only asked if you received one after mine was reported. For some reason yours which was actually an insult was reversed while mine for "inappropriate language" wasn't. I'm merely giving you your own example to reflect back on but for some reason nepotism wins out for the instigator.

Wtf is this ghost "ic" anyway? I never see him around. A search on him gives an error instead of posts. Even clicking one of his albums says it doesn't exist.

 

[DJ...]

Meh.

Back on ignore...

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Meh.

Back on ignore...

Lol

 

[Swa]

What's more, artificial speciation experiments prove that these small changes result in speciation. It was proposed, tested, observed and analysed to be true in multiple organisms, such as the famous e-coli experiment for which there exists in excess of 50,000 new generations which all show genetic mutations and evolution in action. Ergo we know that many small changes result in new phenotypes and large changes overall. To deny it is simply ridiculous. Another interesting bacteria is the nylon eating bacteria. Nylon is a man-made compound, and a recent one at that. The nylon-eating bacteria can only consume nylon - the enzymes they utilise are unique to them, and cannot break down any other known substance, and if it can, that substance forms no part of their ecosystem. The nylon-eating bacteria is the direct result of evolution in action.

And what is speciation? The mutation is in a gene coding for a protein called EII that breaks down small circular proteins. Though nylon is synthetic it's actually very protein like. It's inventor used protein chemistry to make it. After the mutation the protein would be able to break down both circular and straightened out nylon. That is a loss of specificity. This degeneration requires the pre-existence of the gene. Sure it's beneficial but most beneficial mutations are due to a loss of information. Nobody disputes that adaptation can occur from existing traits. The traits have to be there then for it to happen. That is not evolution from adding information but devolution from losing information and it's the norm. Genomes are becoming less complex and not more complex like the evolutionary hypothesis claims.

Kengo Yasuhira et al in 2007 found the gene for the "nylonaise" on a piece of exchangeable DNA so the possibility it existed prior to nylon can't even be ruled out. Contrary to the claim that there's nothing resembling it in nature nylon is actually part of the group of polyamides. It may be beneficial in degrading a similar natural substance.

We know that evolution takes place. If you reject evolution, then I urge you to try to take Methicillin to treat your next bacterial infection. Methicillin was an effective anti-biotic for decades and treated a broad spectrum of infections. That was until it began to somehow lose its efficacy. The bacteria evolved after exposure to Methicillin. Minor changes to the bacteria's DNA made it more or less resistant. Those that were less resistant died off but those that were more resistant lived on and replicated this genetic change into their "offspring". These more resistant strains now began to flourish until they were effectively the only strain left.

I'm sure you've heard of MRSA This is how it's name is derived. MRSA stands for Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, because of the evolution of the Staphylococcus bacteria to eventually become resistant to the most popular penicillin based anti-biotic at the time.

Assuming the resistant strain wasn't already present and antibiotics didn't just kill off the non-resistant strain, Meticillin works by binding to and inhibiting the transpeptidase enzyme used to cross-link the peptide (D-alanyl-alanine) used in peptidoglycan synthesis. It inhibits the manufacture of the cell wall. This penicillin-binding-protein (PBP) is thus required for its integrity. MRSA also produces an additional high molecular weight form PBP that has a low affinity for the b-lactam molecules in penicillin derived antibiotics. When meticillin is introduced the cell wall is altered by this second form of PBP becoming the dominant one in use. MRSA isn't more virulent and didn't evolve anything new to evade the Meticillin. In fact if an antibiotic targeting this PBP was used MRSA would stand little chance while it wont have any effect on the non-resistant version.

If evolution is thus merely a trade off with existing traits, and in some cases even losing traits, then sure that happens. It's the loss of complexity. But evolution is claimed to be the increase in complexity from a single simple cell to all the species in existence. Using the first observed instance of adaptation from already existing traits in existing species to infer the opposite can happen and result in new traits leading to diversification is a logical fallacy.

Now you want to tell me that evolution is nonsense? Then go look up the various vestigial organs and structures in the animal kingdom, particularly in the ape and human kingdom. Then look up the ape genetic mutation on chromosome 2 of human DNA with regards to the vestigial centromere that was predicted by evolutionary biologists. Evolution could only be true if there had been a fusion of 24 base-pair ape chromosomes. Guess what - it is there, as predicted. It has been studied in depth. It shows common descent from apes, clearly showing evidence for natural selection, and in fact speciation. If there was a god, why would he leave all of these vestigial structures in the animal kingdom? It makes no sense whatsoever. The only explanation that can predict is evolution and subsequently tested with science. No science has been able to prove it untrue yet, and it would have to be a real whopper of a revelation considering the overwhelming evidence proving evolution on multiple scales of measurement.

Vestigial organs is not an argument against design. Such previously considered vestigial organs have also been found to play an important role. Tonsils that were once removed in dangerous unjustified operations due to evolutionary theory are actually the first alert to infectious agents. "Evolution" is thus an impediment and danger and should be demolished and let go off. The appendix is helpful in replenishing the colon with beneficial bacteria after diarrheal episodes and plays an important role pre-birth.

I know of the paper on the supposed fusion of chromosome 2. It doesn't describe it as a prediction but more of a discovery. What is termed "prediction" is more accurately a conclusion based on if evolution is true. Popper called these so-called predictions retrodictions. If the chromosomes weren't found it would have been a retrodiction that they disappeared. If there was a split that would have been a retrodiction of evolution too. Indeed if the "fusion" was absent it would not have disproved anything. Unless everything has 24 chromosomes the existence of anything more or less would then disprove evolution. Guess what, earthworms have 36, rabbits have 44, pigs have 38. The list goes on and amazingly none of it is seen as disproving evolution. A theory that can explain everything explains nothing.

Evolution exists. It simply cannot be refuted...

So does God. Nobody can refute it.

 

[cyghost]

so 25 pages in and no one has rejected evolution with any science eh? What is more, most theists here happily accept the fact of evolution and agree that the theory explains the observations best. They work their supernaturalistic beliefs to actually comply with observable reality. Which is a nice and honest thing imho.


I think we can safely conclude that any one who thinks otherwise either do not understand evolution or are simply lying for their deity of choice.

interesting as this what I predicted from the start.

 

[JonnStar]

@ swa. The change in evolution isn't supposed to have direction toward or away from complexity and your so called devolution just explains why that specific organism is where it is. This is expected. So what the hell did you ramble on about then?

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

A Big Question debate:

[video=youtube_share;tOPJXCDsMLI]http://youtu.be/tOPJXCDsMLI[/video]

 

[Swa]

@ swa. The change in evolution isn't supposed to have direction toward or away from complexity and your so called devolution just explains why that specific organism is where it is. This is expected. So what the hell did you ramble on about then?

Evolution IS supposed to increase complexity from non-living matter to complex multicellular organisms. I can't believe now that no evidence of that has been found it is suddenly claimed that evolution doesn't have to increase complexity. So everything started to exist with this complexity then? That is creation man.

 

[CoolBug]

Making a conclusion before you research/experiment/think is not science. No matter how much you want it to be.

We all know there can never be scientific evidence against evolution, just saying that is so ridiculous. It's a phucking explanation of observations, it's never been about proof.

The problem isn't science or evolution, the problem is an immense lack of an understanding of the 2 as well as arrogance.

I don't even know why I came here, you can't reason with these kinds of people.

Their egos and myths are far greater than logic will ever be.

 

[TJ99]

Making a conclusion before you research/experiment/think is not science. No matter how much you want it to be.

We all know there can never be scientific evidence against evolution, just saying that is so ridiculous. It's a phucking explanation of observations, it's never been about proof.

The problem isn't science or evolution, the problem is an immense lack of an understanding of the 2 as well as arrogance.

I don't even know why I came here, you can't reason with these kinds of people.

Their egos and myths are far greater than logic will ever be.

Good, now if only you could ignore the troll the next time it says something about evolution having to do with non-living matter.

 

[porchrat]

We all know there can never be scientific evidence against evolution, just saying that is so ridiculous. It's a phucking explanation of observations, it's never been about proof.

I don't know that. Of course there can be evidence against the theory of evolution (the explanation of observations). The example often employed is if one were to find a Precambrian rabbit.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Evolution IS supposed to increase complexity from non-living ng matter to complex multicellular organisms. I can't believe now that no evidence of that has been found it is suddenly claimed that evolution doesn't have to increase complexity. So everything started to exist with this complexity then?

Nope. That's what they thought in the days of Lamarck. Evolution doesn't have to always increase complexity. An example is parasites that lose certain traits because their hosts perform it and they piggyback on it.

That is creation man.

No, it isn't. Even if the ToE gets falsified, that wouldn't automatically mean creation is true.

 

[CoolBug]

I don't know that. Of course there can be evidence against the theory of evolution (the explanation of observations). The example often employed is if one were to find a Precambrian rabbit.

Lol

That still wouldn't disprove evolution, again, a scientific theory has never been about proving or disproving.

If they found a poodle in the precrambrian era, it would blow scientists minds but it wouldn't disprove anything, it would just mean a few steps backwards in the understanding of the theory and it's back to the drawing board.

Creation, from a scientific view never was / will be on the table because we're still waiting for evidence, there isn't any after 2000 years. Evolution after only 200 years has more evidence and facts probably than all other theories combined. And I don't think I'm exaggerating.

I've thought of an analogy that might be ridiculous but still valid.
If there is an explanation of how to ride a bike, can it ever be disproved? I don't think so, the explanation could always be expanded and changed but it's never about proofs it's just an explanation.

All scientists are trying to do with these theories is explain to us what they've observed through observations, research and experiments.

Maybe I'm confused about what an explanation is.

 

[zippy]

RiaX, kindly place Swa on your ignore list. We're trying this thing where we want to see if he'll take his idiocy and go away if we all just ignore him.

Swa's posts are hilarious. Don't take anything he posts seriously. It's quite entertaining reading the drivel he posts. Ofc, you need to get to the point where you can laugh him off

 

[porchrat]

Lol

That still wouldn't disprove evolution, again, a scientific theory has never been about proving or disproving.

Nobody was talking about disproving we were talking about there being evidence against the theory. The theory is not infinitely adaptable. There are things that can be discovered that would falsify the theory of evolution. That is the entire point of science. If there exists a theory that cannot ever be falsified regardless of what evidence is uncovered then it isn't valid science and must be discarded.

The way you describe the theory (nothing could ever be discovered that could falsify the theory) would invalidate it automatically. It would no longer count as valid science.

If they found a poodle in the precrambrian era, it would blow scientists minds but it wouldn't disprove anything, it would just mean a few steps backwards in the understanding of the theory and it's back to the drawing board.

No a rabbit in the Precambrian would be devastating to the theory of evolution. So far we have found the fossils in the temporal layers we would expect to find them, a Precambrian rabbit would throw the entire thing out of whack and I doubt the theory would be able to adapt to accommodate it. I could be wrong but I don't see how it could adapt to that.


The rest is not to do with what I was disagreeing with so I'll leave it out.

 

[SaiyanZ]

The only way I can see people denying evolution is if they disagree with all the various dating methods used. New species found within rocks only exist within a certain period ranging in millions of years. Same with humans. No human skeletons older than 2 millions have been found. Dinosaur skeletons have only been found from around 230 million years ago up to around 65 million years ago. This applies to tons of extinct species even within say the dinosaur group. Some species existed for only around 10 million years. Bacteria ruled the earth for the first 3 billion years. All life was microscopic for that time.

Unless people believe that God steps in every few hundred years and tweaks say a thousand species slightly. Ever so slightly that they are close to their parent species but not quite. This is done to test our faith to fool us into believing that the process is natural and not through his magic. He must be real busy though with all the millions of types of bacteria given that they can evolve in a matter of days. Maybe that is why bacteria kept God busy for 3 billion years before he decided to create something more complex.

 

[RiaX]

Evolution IS supposed to increase complexity from non-living matter to complex multicellular organisms. I can't believe now that no evidence of that has been found it is suddenly claimed that evolution doesn't have to increase complexity. So everything started to exist with this complexity then? That is creation man.

.......... no hope

@ saiyanz

They simply ignore fossil evidence >.< ... even though there about 8 humanoid fossils discovered now. They get their science from the flintstones

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

.......... no hope

@ saiyanz

They simply ignore fossil evidence >.< ... even though there about 8 humanoid fossils discovered now. They get their science from the flintstones

Don't you know that every single fossil found is actually just a big hoax perpetrated by evolutionists to turn people away from Jesus? What else do you think scientists do with their time!

 

[Ekstasis]

what about the so-called "living fossils" ? What is the evolutionary reason for animal species identical or virtually identical to their 150 million year fossilized ancestors? Natural selection decided "nah, you guys are okay..carry on surviving you're well equipped"