Evolution discussion

[One Brow]

However, to question that there is no "evidence" that mushrooms and cats are of different "kinds" is ludicrous to the highest degree! Even basic "101" biology explains the difference between vegetation and mammals!

Basic Biology 101 also knows that there is a difference between dogs and wolves, or cats and lions, or dung beetles and bombardier beetles, yet you lump those pairs into single kinds. Sneering is not evidence. What's your evidence that cats and mushrooms are different kinds?

 

[One Brow]

Or have they found other "little Archy's" more suitable for flying scattered all over the fossil record since Archeopteryx, with it's feeble powers of flight, was unable to cope with a gust of wind and fell into the shallow waters below and drowned?

1) Yes, there are several protobirds that have been discovered.
2) Even a small ability to glide, or leap high, can be a survival advantage (e.g., flying squirrels). The ability to fly didn't need to spring into being overnight.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

......are you trying to tell me that ALL scientists, paleontologist's, biologist, etc NEVER say that what they have stated or surmise is "educated guess" work? How about "assume?" Do they use that word? How about "judicious speculation?" I can't speak for Watson, who may be a "creationist" (one who believes that each creative day was 24 literal hrs) but I am well versed on the subject of the animal kingdom and have no problem discussing the intricate design and amazing life forms of the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of species of life on earth, each one having its own special story! Frankly, if anyone is embarrassing himself you might want to look into the mirror! You believe in a "theory" that, although accepted by millions even billions, has been proved or plausibly explained by NO ONE! "This is what happens over billions of years" IS NOT an explanation! If evolution happened......then tells us HOW it happened with "bee's and beehives" with "Woodpeckers" or with "the Archer fish!" Or how about an easy one.....the "Duck billed Platypus!" Here's a critter that lays eggs....then suckles it's young, like mammals! It looks part duck....part otter....part beaver! Yet, the platypus is fully developed, perfectly formed, and completely "adapted" to his environment! What kind of ridiculous picture would an evolutionist conjure up if a platypus had been discovered as a fossil form of life? So give us a "good scientific theory with a great deal of work and thinking behind it!" We're waiting!

Scientists make all sorts of claims, say all sorts of things, they are individuals like you and not immune to biases, narrow mindedness, etc. BUT we were not talking about the personality of individual scientists but how science operates and what role 'theories' play in this process. Your statements clearly demonstrate you don't understand what a theory is, how they are derived, and what role they play in the scientific process. You are as unenlightened about science as you are about race. Again, really, you ought to shut up and quit making a fool of yourself.

 

[scootsy]

https://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/4427142/medieval-humans-adapted-to-resist-leprosy-study

 

[Darkwing Duck]

https://www.theverge.com/2013/6/13/4427142/medieval-humans-adapted-to-resist-leprosy-study

Someone in the comments thread questioned the possible variables that weren't mentioned. Plus, there usually isn't a major change in resistances unless there are many deaths in that population. Possible that many contracted leprosy before reproducing, and the stigma quickly kept them from reproducing, so those with more resistances bred, so maybe that's the cause of the drastic shift.

 

[carolinajazz]

Actually, I've seen similar wording regularly in scientific papers. Scientists have no problem with speculations labeled as speculations. However, speculations and educated guesses are not theories.

There are various definitions of "theories" as well! The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. Although you, and other "evolutionists" like to think your "theory" has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact....that is simply NOT the case! You and others declare that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity. But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun.....that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally. And debates rages about theories of evolution, but do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No. How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

The picture of a creature fully developed, fully formed, and well-adapted to their environment. Populations that produce offspring which are undeveloped, unformed, or maladapted don't leave enough progeny to have a significant chance of being fossilized. Evolution predicts that the typical creature in any particular population will be fully developed, fully formed, and well-adapted.

Evolution "predicts?" Just like they predicted that the fossil record would eventually prove by means of "intermediate stages" that these various species "evolved" from one another? Yet there are NONE! The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations is a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24,*25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution!"

What has confounded such scientists is the fact that the massive fossil evidence now available reveals the very same thing that it did in Darwin’s day: Basic kinds of living things appeared suddenly and did not change appreciably for long periods of time. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found. So what the fossil record says is just the opposite of what was expected. So, on the basis of the facts alone, on the basis of what is actually found in the earth, the theory of a sudden creative act in which the major forms of life were established fits best!

 

[carolinajazz]

1) Yes, there are several protobirds that have been discovered.
2) Even a small ability to glide, or leap high, can be a survival advantage (e.g., flying squirrels). The ability to fly didn't need to spring into being overnight.

....look! Either you fly or you don't fly! If you don't fly the first time.....your brains get splattered all over the floor! Flying squirrels are still "squirrels" and don't really "fly" like birds! Yes, they are unique, they are different....but they're not birds! And what's the survival "advantage" of the flying squirrel....when the gray squirrels still exist by the billions, out numbering the flying squirrels by a factor of 10? Please tell me your not pinning your hopes of the truthfulness of "evolution" or that birds came from reptiles by the "flying squirrel"? Oh, wait! The flying squirrel is not a reptile, it's a mammal! (Actually a tree rat!)

 

[MVP]

. No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found.

You are like broken record. How many times we need to repeat that numerous transitional species have been discovered in fossil records and even live on earth right now. You are just to ignorant to see it. Stop playing this card as it is wrong.

 

[MVP]

....look! Either you fly or you don't fly! If you don't fly the first time.....your brains get splattered all over the floor! Flying squirrels are still "squirrels" and don't really "fly" like birds!

What is a penguin? Ostrich? Kiwi?

 

[One Brow]

There are various definitions of "theories" as well!

Of course, but when discussing science, we should use the definition specific to science.

Although you, and other "evolutionists" like to think your "theory" has never been disproved through experiment, and has a basis in fact....that is simply NOT the case! You and others declare that evolution is as much a fact as the existence of gravity.

Aspects of evolution are fact. The development of bacteria that eat various synthetic materials is a fact. The there was a common ancestral population for all apes is a fact. These facts are based in careful observation, experimentation, and testing, just like the motion of a body in a gravitational field is a fact.

But it can be proved experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun.....that hydrogen and oxygen make water, and that gravity exists. Evolution cannot be proved experimentally.

Proof is for alcohol and mathematicians. It's been demonstrated experimentally that the earth revolves around the sun, hydrogen and oxygen make water, gravity exists, and we share a common ancestry with every other animal, using the exact same experimental processes.

And debates rages about theories of evolution, but do debates still rage about the earth revolving around the sun, about hydrogen and oxygen making water, and about the existence of gravity? No.

Debates continue about some of the details of evolution, the earth's movement around the sun, the exact way in which hydrogen and oxygen interact in making water, and gravity. There is no serious scientific doubt on the general theory of any of these four.

How reasonable is it, then, to say that evolution is as much a fact as these things are?

If you desire to be reasonable, you must affirm all four.

Evolution "predicts?" Just like they predicted that the fossil record would eventually prove by means of "intermediate stages" that these various species "evolved" from one another?

Fossils don't testify, do mathematics, nor drink alcohol, so they have nothing to do with proof. However, evolutionary theory does predict that we will see fossils of various sorts, and has been successful in these predictions. For example, evolution predicted that we would find Tiktaalik rosea, or something very much like it, in that general area years before it was discovered. Not because MET was predicting something that would be half of one thing and half of another, but because based on the ancestors and descendants of the populations in the region, along with the prevailing conditions, they would have been selected for.

Yet there are NONE! The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations is a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species.

Why? How else should they appear?

On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another.

True of MET, as well.

It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only “according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24,*25)

Since, as far as you know, a cat and a mushroom are of the same kind, this is no limitation on MET.

Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record.

Again, this is also a prediction of MET. If you want to prove creationism is superior to met, you need to start with things creationism predicts differently than MET. However, all the evidence in those cases seems to side with MET.

All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.

Again, a prediction of MET.

Darwin frankly admitted: “If numerous species .*.*. have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution!"

Misquoting Darwin does you no credit.

No transitional links between one major kind of living thing and another have ever been found.

Since you don't know what a transitional link is, you really can't say this.

 

[One Brow]

....look! Either you fly or you don't fly! If you don't fly the first time.....your brains get splattered all over the floor!

Birds have legs, and so did proto-birds. When they didn't fly, the landed on their feet.

Flying squirrels are still "squirrels" and don't really "fly" like birds!

Exactly my point. You don't need to be fully capable of flight for wings to be helpful.

And what's the survival "advantage" of the flying squirrel....when the gray squirrels still exist by the billions, out numbering the flying squirrels by a factor of 10?

They have not died off. That's survival.

Please tell me your not pinning your hopes of the truthfulness of "evolution" or that birds came from reptiles by the "flying squirrel"?

No, I'm just using it to illustrate that you don't need to fly for wings to be useful.

 

[One Brow]

You are like broken record. How many times we need to repeat that numerous transitional species have been discovered in fossil records and even live on earth right now. You are just to ignorant to see it. Stop playing this card as it is wrong.

You seem to be repeating the notion that there are some unique species that have the particular status of transitional. Every current species alive today, that doesn't die off, is transitional. No species has a special place in that regard.