RAF
You don't seem to get what I mean or I am expressing myself badly;
- I support a theory because of the evidence supporting it.
- There are no other theories that match the evidence even remotely as well.
- There are loads of hypotheses with no evidence, but they don't interest me as they have no evidence.
Thus for everyday purpses, I regard the theory as a fact.
Just like I would regard a cow in my living room and a hole in my roof as the product of a bizzare animal handling accident on an airplane as a fact for everyday purposes, even if my next door neighbour told me aliens put it there or an angel delivered it.
I might be wrong about Evolution. I might be wrong about the origin of the cow. But it's not particulary likely.
Everyboby can believe in what they want since it doesn't hurt?
Yes, tell that to the victims of religious violence, tell that to families broken by cults. How can you say beliefs don't hurt? Maybe you don't mean the sort of beliefs that lead to religous violence or other damage, but those damaging beliefs are ALWAYS supported by an insistence that unfounded opinion is worth more than evidence.
I don't know what you would ask. You might ask whatever question comes to your mind to explore if my reasonning makes sens to you ...
Good answer. You are paying attention ;-)
But actually it is far simpler. I would ask for evidence that would be acceptable in a court of law or a science lab.
And you are not applying the same standards.
You have a belief which you cannot prove and have no evidence or theory of. You accept this without question.
I have a theory with evidence that supports it. Without even bothering to really learn about the subject (I am not being mean, this statement is based upon the knowledge you display, not one your ninterpreation of that knowledge) you decide that the theory is wrong, yet have no other explanation for the evidence that we see.
If you applied the standards you apply to evolutionary theory to your own beliefs, you would have to question your own beliefs. You are applying a massive double standard.
Now, I am very happy for you to have your beliefs. I just take exception to someone denying what are regarded as facts in court of law (in at least Australia and the US this has effectively happened) when they keep slipping up and shopping they don't know the subject as well they think they do.
I don't know why you cannot be happy with 'our' theory, as it's not like you have anything to replace it, as god could make the world any damn way he liked and still exist. This insistence that RAF and Apostate Kate and others are right and all those silly scientists are wrong seems to stem from something but I can't out my finger on it. For a panthiest your level of insistence on evolutionary error is, well, unique in my experience.
As for links, well, here are some links about links;
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Please ask any questions about these articles you might have. And please don't compromise your intelligence by making ludicous claims about there being no 'archaelogoical' evidence of evoluton, there's a large museum full of it in most major cities.
I also have to thank another poster for sharing this with me;
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_8_115/ai_n16807321/pg_1
This 'proves' common descent of many species. Basically once an animal stops using a gene, the gene gets eroded by errors as it isn't needed for survival and thus has no selection pressure to maintain it. But we can still see these eroded non-functional genes. For example, whales and dolphins don't see in colour as it is useless to see in colour below a few metres depth. However, they still carry the eroded non-functional genes for colour vision they inherited from their terrestial ancestors who had colour vision.
But I fear what you want to prove links is the same as me saying I want proof of mountain erosion.
Someone could take me to the mountain and show me cracks in rocks and pebbles and sand, wind and water. But I could say this was not proof of erosion unless I could SEE the mountain getting smaller.
If I said this someone who knew about geology would find me most unreasonable, as no one can see the erosion of mountains due to the time scale it happens on. Most people would think I was ignoring the evidence of erosion all around me.
I fear that I can show you the equivalent of cracks in rocks and pebbles and sand, wind and water, but unless you see a dog turn into a cat you won't accept the evidence. What am I meant to think about that attitude?
And I am still smiling and being nice, I'm just challenging you; I am disappointed you don't want your beliefs challenged - one thing the JW experience taught us is that truth need not hide or run away from examination. Why do you run away from examining your truth?
More they will have means to research and more they will find ways to explain the process that we already know about evolution capacities (But not links to lead a species to another, and scientists really need that to make this entire theory credible – but we miss archaeologist material here … that’s the problem – if they have been able to find several types (but not compatible to bread – since they have means to state about that … So …it doesn’t help them) it just means that those types could have been animals/species who disappeared like Dinosaurs – that’s way back – and we have proof for that … So … where is the proof in what we are talking about to make the entire thing ok as a real proof? … )
Look, when they started digging up fossils and recognising them for what they were, they arranged the skeletons in family trees. Obviously some mistakes were made and sometimes new evidence made them shuffle stuff about.
But they have never found a pentadactyl tetrapod in the Ordovian (or anything 'out-of-place' that would disprove the general theory). Thus cladistic (bone-based) theories of descent were the best match to evidence.
Then we discover genetics. And for those animals that we can obtain DNA samples from (either still alive or recently extinct) guess what? In the vast majority of cases the family trees made on the basis of bones were proved by genetics.
We can see (if you read above article) the traces of long-disused eroded genes that show genes are passed on, and if they don't get used will decay but still provide a trail proving descent.
Now, you are yet to come up with one reason WHY you refuse to accept the evidence for links; you write as though you think there is none, which makes me wonder how much you do know about the subject
So, rather than taking the easy option of vaugely saying 'there is no proof', why not show us just how flimsy evolutionary theory is by attacking in a specific fashion? Above you have loads of evidence that you can examine concerning specific links, and come back with the reasons why you don't accept it.
Like I say, I am afraid at the end of the day the fact I cannot show you a dog turn into a cat (not that I say this happened, it is an example of change) will make you say it's not proof.
But you know what? Mountains will still erode even if I say they don't because I cannot see it happen.
Happy Valentines all the same
Gyles
Apostate Kate
What, no answers? Can you only answer the questions you have a URL for, or a stock reply?
This is not a debate board but a discussion board and it is good that we can keep it respectful. Why do you feel the need to refute someone anyway? Why not a calm respectful discussion?
LOL. Pot. Kettle. Black. I've often seen your responses in these sort of threads but normally ignore them as you always seem to be screaming off a soapbox; and I will C&P examples if you deny this. Yup, I put things forcefully too, but I don't pretend otherwise.
If YOU weren't refuting someone with your C&P, what were you doing? Applying a double standard is the only thing I can find evidence for... Oh, debate doesn't mean rude, why imply a falsehood? Discussion doesn't preclude disagreement, so why make it sound like it cannot take place?
And Apostate Kate, what some random 'evolutionist' (what University and what specialism? What class of degree?) may or may not have said to you is irrelvent. There are thousands of pages (4.7 million actually) that come up with thermodynamics as a search term. I BET you the only ones which say evolution violates the 2nd law are those which support creationism et.al..
Despite claiming you go for a non-biased view you mistake a comment, or take a mistake someone made, and use this as a basis of an attack on evolution, ignoring that the vast majority of references on the subject (for this read all the credible ones) and accepting the claims of a tiny biased minority, most of whom aren't even physicists. Why?
You mention scientific error. Why? What is wrong with science changing its mind about something if evidence is available which supports it changing its mind?
And how can you have the gall to say you know anything about the subject or go for unbiased sources when you say things like;
It is full of extinct species, get it, extinct species. Species that did not adapt.
Where do I begin? Some of those species indeed ALL died out as they couldn't survive in a new situation. Other times entire species evolved into a new species so would appear as dying out as they did. Other times portions of the total population evolved into new species, and other portions died out, in both cases making it look like the original species dying out as it did.
Just because species CAN adapt doesn't mean they do so succesfully. You are implying evolutionary theory makes a claim it does not, which you could only do if you knew very little about the subject.
So far, as also pointed out above, by your own mistakes you are making it obvious you are an outspoken critic (nothing wrong with that) of a subject you don't know enough about to reliably make a post on without making mistakes, not of opinion but of fact (which is just making you look silly all by your own actions).
Today we have humans riddled with diseases and getting sicker and sicker with more fatal mutations occurring not less.
Evolution if a true scientific law would be evident across the board, all living things would be subject to it.
It is; I am surprised for someone so well versed in evolution that you seem unaware of the proofs that human populations do evolve following the theory of natural selection. How do you account for this gap in your knowledge?
Instead it is common sense that says all life is subject to the 2nd law, entropy and will die.
Wrong. Go talk to a physicist if you can put your arrogance on hold for 1 minute.
Now, lets see if you can answer simple questions; please account for dolphins and whales having inactive decayed forms of the genes for colour vision.
Please tell me what proves your personal theory of origins... I assume that as such a well-read critic of evolution you have of course a theory with evidence of a standard acceptable in a reasonable venue? It would be unthinkable you wouId be hypocritical enough to attack a theory when you don't even have one yourself.
My opinion on the different skulls are that they all were either simian or human. When I was a child I was taught and believed that Neanderthal was a hairy ape man. Then later I learned that they buried their dead with flowers and other information was unearthed.
Look at yourself; you KNOW that MORE INFORMATION was DISCOVERED, and ATTACK evolutionists for changing their ideas! How unreasonable can you get. Oh, and the above change in estimation of H. neander' didn't ever threaten the basic principles of evolutionary theory. One H. erectus in a era of A. rama would. The fact you think this put evolution in peril is you again illustrating you are pontificating about a subject you show little knowledge of.
Neanderthal now is believed to have been fully human and intermarried with people from other regions that did not have the pronounced brow ridge.
There is one set of evidence that MAY support this but it is not agreed with by all. We do KNOW that there is no proof of such interbreeding other than claudistic comparison as we have mDNA profiles for H. neander'ad H. sap' and there is no link. If you knew as much as you claim you would explain this evidence differently.
Some scientists think that apes and man interbred. That is stupid to me. It can't happen today, it did not happen then.
I'd love to see the qualifications of people making such claims and when they made them. Please provide it so I can show either (by ommission of proof) you are lying or are quoting claims made ages ago/by unqualified people.
I still have not heard the logical explanation for the Human Genome Project tracing human DNA back to the first humans and ending there with a tribe in Africa. Wouldn't DNA be traceable all the way back to chimps?
Hysterical. Please understand I don't expect YOU to change your mind as I have had enough discussions on this board to develop a nose for it. You probably won't even reply, LOL.
I am VERY aware (as people tell me) that threads like this are pivotal in making those who are willing to be open minded about the subject examine the evidence.
And as you show very clearly what side reason, knowledge and evidence is on all I really have to do is keep you 'proving' how wrong evolution is and then supply Cliff Notes for YOU to convince fence-sitters and even some who believe in ID or Creation that evolution is worth looking at again by your comprehensive lack of knowledge and continual errors. This is not an insult, it's describing your behaviour. By all means show my claims about your errors are false.
Going back to your above comment, it is funny how you use evidence supporting evolution (human genome project) to make a claim that shows massive ignorance about the subject, as geentic evidnece also shows the vast similarity between us and the Great Apes. If aliens did the classifying of species they would probably put us and Chimps in the same grouping, H. trog and H. sap.
There are gaps, big gaps that cannot be explained away with, "look at the similarities they prove we evolved" bunk. Where is the DNA trail?
In books about the genetic evidence for evolution. Read one.
I have heard theories to explain the gap such as "the gaps are in the missing link's DNA" which opens up a whole new set of questions. If macro evolution works then how and why did entire species die off? gaps gaps gaps....
And there as well as showing despite your 'massive knowledge' of evolution you think it claims species never die out (WRONG)., LyYou also have shown you don't understand fossilisation!
In order for macro evolution to work we would see transitional species today.
AH, and mountains don't erode because you can't see it happen? LOL