5 best proofs of evolution

[alextemplet]

Supersport, I mean this in the nicest way possible, but there is nothing resembling scientific validity in your most recent post.

Now am I going to have to be the one to disprove his statements or would someone else like a go? I'm kind of tired out from debating in the "Mutations" thread.

[alextemplet]

You know what, never mind, here I go:

1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam's original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original "Adam"...thus no original sin that condemned mankind.....this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

I believe the Bible as well, but Genesis seems to be remarkably compatible with evolution, doesn't it? And perhaps God caused Adam to evolve from an ape-like ancestor, and then Adam committed his original sin, and then from him came all of humanity? Scientists have found genetic evidence of Eve's existence, so why not Adam as well?

2) There is no valid materialistic origin of life...science seems to be shying away from this nowdays, seemingly accepting that life has an unknown cause.

This has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution only explains how life developed after it originated, not how it originated in the first place.

3) There is no valid explanation for the origin of the genetic code, which is insanely huge and complex, yet compressed into an incredibly small package.

I'm not so sure on that one. Various biocompounds such as amino acids and nucleotide bases have been found to occur naturally in various parts of the universe. It's quite possible those naturally-occurring biochemicals could've come together to form the first cell.

4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

This is such a blatant fallacy I wonder if I should even bother to answer it. Soft tissues can be fossilized under the right conditions. As for dinosaurs appearing in ancient art, that is completely untrue. Please cite sources if you think otherwise.

5) There is not even one substantiated scientific validation of the mechanism of Random mutations culled by natural selection. Not one. Never has science even dared to prove this concept in a laboratory test or in the field with real animals....and this is because the mechanism is a fairytale. Physiological change, which is misconstrued as "evolution" is actually a just a developmental phenomenon in individuals. Evolutionists have long said that phenotypic change results from mutations, but in reality it's not mutations that modify phenotype, it's a re-expressions of regulatory genes that happens during development. This is a purposeful, intelligent process that has nothing to do with changes in genes or adding new genes. You can read more about that here:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover

I suggest you read Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea by Carl Zimmer and Finding Darwin's God by Dr. Kenneth Miller. Both have plenty of descriptions of evidence validating exactly what you claim has never been validated.

6) There is no materialist origin for anything.

And this disproves evolution how?

7) The mind manipulates matter, not the other way around. It's a fact that sensations, awareness and other mental processes can purposefully alter/modify morphology, even lead to evolutionary, heritable change. If materialism were true, matter would have to manipulate mental processes.

Yet evolution and materialism are two completely different theories.

8) There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.

Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould's The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors.

9) Science has never found any common ancestor....not between man and apes -- not between any other animals either. Common ancestors are a figment of peoples' imagination and have no place in science.

Again, this is just plain not true. Read any of the above-mentioned books as good sources.

10.) There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

What does this have to do with evolution?

[kclo4x]

1) I believe the Bible is true and that Jesus Christ died on the cross for all of mankind. If Jesus Christ died on the cross, then this validates Adam's original sin. If, however, man evolved from worms, then there was never an original "Adam"...thus no original sin that condemned mankind.....this, in turn, invalidates any reason for Jesus to die on the cross.

Well perhaps he did die for no reason. Perhaps the terrorist on 9/11 died for no reason as well.
Perhaps their isn't even such a thing as "sin" just good and bad actions.
We didn't evolve from worms. However we do have a very very distant common ancestor.

2) There is no valid materialistic origin of life...science seems to be shying away from this nowdays, seemingly accepting that life has an unknown cause.

This is abiogenesis. And it might be possible to make life in the next 3 to 10 years!
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

3) There is no valid explanation for the origin of the genetic code, which is insanely huge and complex, yet compressed into an incredibly small package.

Explain how their isn't a valid explanation for it. according to this, "magic man done it" isn't even a valid explanation so this doesn't help any of us.

4) The dinosaurs, which are said to have lived 100 million years ago have been unearthed with soft tissue/proteins embedded in their bones, which indicates that they could not possibly be millions of years old. Also, ancient art and sculptures have depicted dinosaurs on cave walls and on art.

O rly? Dangz you got me! haha just messin!
No they haven't or the theory of evolution would change to fit.
This is possible, however if it were a dinosaur that had not gone extinct till very later on. but that still works out perfectly. What dinosaur was it anyways? and when did they go extinct?
Also your forgetting about the ones that are measured with uranium-lead dating, found in sediments that date back way back. much further then 600 years.

5) There is not even one substantiated scientific validation of the mechanism of Random mutations culled by natural selection. Not one. Never has science even dared to prove this concept in a laboratory test or in the field with real animals....and this is because the mechanism is a fairytale. Physiological change, which is misconstrued as "evolution" is actually a just a developmental phenomenon in individuals. Evolutionists have long said that phenotypic change results from mutations, but in reality it's not mutations that modify phenotype, it's a re-expressions of regulatory genes that happens during development. This is a purposeful, intelligent process that has nothing to do with changes in genes or adding new genes. You can read more about that here:

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/cover

What about fruit flys? Radiating fruit flys cause all sorts of different things to happen to them. What about breeding dogs? All our pet dogs come from a Wolf, and they are still wolfs. but the genetics of a great dane is not the same as a toy poodle
about fruit flys:
http://www.exploratorium.edu/exhibits/m ... flies.html

its Genetics can change for the better, why couldn't they?

6) There is no materialist origin for anything.

And this clearly means that ----------

eh.. whats your point?

7) The mind manipulates matter, not the other way around. It's a fact that sensations, awareness and other mental processes can purposefully alter/modify morphology, even lead to evolutionary, heritable change. If materialism were true, matter would have to manipulate mental processes.

Since you say evolution isn't real, how can it possibly "lead to evolutionary, heritable change"?

There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.[/quote]
Yes, there is a ton! along with a lot of other species of animals, whales are a great example.

9) Science has never found any common ancestor....not between man and apes -- not between any other animals either. Common ancestors are a figment of peoples' imagination and have no place in science.

So, what about Lucy?
What about all those others? Austrolipethicus, homo erects? homo inhabitis? And all those other ones?
even if we didn't come from them. if evolution isn't real why would these fossils even exist anyways?

10.) There is no scientific explanation for consciousness.

But one day, hopefully, we will
What then?
And if not, What is your point now?

This has nothing to do with anything!




Now guys, come on please can't we keep this on the subject?
5 "best proofs" for evolution.


Oh yeah, and supersport
STOP listening to kent hovind!
Not even creationist agree with him.

[supersport]

Why are you people denying that unfossilized soft tissue...ie proteins, blood vessels, cells, etc have not been found embedded in dinosaur bones?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... issue.html

March 24, 2005
A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only preserved soft tissues ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation.


So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating? I don't

[alextemplet]

Why are you people denying that unfossilized soft tissue...ie proteins, blood vessels, cells, etc have not been found embedded in dinosaur bones?

I never said they haven't been found; only that they can be preserved under the right conditions.

So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating?

Where in that article did it say that the tissue hadn't been fossilized?

[supersport]

Why are you people denying that unfossilized soft tissue...ie proteins, blood vessels, cells, etc have not been found embedded in dinosaur bones?

I never said they haven't been found; only that they can be preserved under the right conditions.

So tell me, do you really think soft tissue could last for 70 million years without fossilizing or disintegrating?

Where in that article did it say that the tissue hadn't been fossilized?

how could soft, flexible tissue containing proteins be fossilzed (ie..turned to stone?)

And I don't know about that particular dinosaur, but there have been dinosaurs found in alaska not completely fossilized.

[alextemplet]

how could soft, flexible tissue containing proteins be fossilzed (ie..turned to stone?)

And I don't know about that particular dinosaur, but there have been dinosaurs found in alaska not completely fossilized.

Why couldn't they be fossilized? The process would just have to occur much faster than normal, before those tissues had time to decay. As for dinosaurs not completely fossilized, I'd like to see evidence on that one.

[AstusAleator]

Hmm I wrote an incredibly witty post in this discussion last night, but something must have bugged out and it didn't get posted . That makes me a sad panda.

[Linn]

quote]supersport wrote:
There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.



Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould's The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors. [/quote]

Alex
I do not have that book and was wondering if you mind writing which
fossils you are refering to.

Thanks

[alextemplet]

Hmm I wrote an incredibly witty post in this discussion last night, but something must have bugged out and it didn't get posted . That makes me a sad panda.

It's okay. I'll be a sympathetic panda and give you a panda-hug.

[alextemplet]

quote]supersport wrote:
There are no ape fossils that transition into human fossils.



Completely untrue. Read either of the above-mentioned books or, better yet, Stephen Jay Gould's The Book of Life for some useful information on human ancestors.

Alex
I do not have that book and was wondering if you mind writing which
fossils you are refering to.

Thanks [/quote]

Ugh, that book is currently at my friend's apartment and I was just in his town this morning. Oh well, I'll see what I can find for you.

[David George]

I believe the Bible as well, but Genesis seems to be remarkably compatible with evolution, doesn't it? And perhaps God caused Adam to evolve from an ape-like ancestor, and then Adam committed his original sin, and then from him came all of humanity? Scientists have found genetic evidence of Eve's existence, so why not Adam as well?

wow but was that eve by any way of negroid origin.Sure the religious freaks would never agree to that.The Jews who started your religion would feel very insulted of that fact.