Scientists Baffled-New Discoveries-Darwinian Evolution Crumbling-Scientists Abandon Theory

"missing links"
nobody is trying to hide that.

the Theory is still sound, however.

people, people.

please cut the Evolution Researchers some slack.

they are groping in the dark: i mean, they've got
to dig up 100 tons of rock to find the answer to one question...

Trust us we are scientists................................

maybe you should go live in South Africa. they don't
have goofy ideas like these Scientists.

lol. Ok, now you're just being obtuse and dishonest.

How does evolution happen? Mutation, natural selection and horizontal gene transfer are all mechanisms that change a population. How can the change be accelerated? The change can be accelerated by an environmental change, or a genetic bottleneck. Happy now?

I'm giving you answers, you're just unable or unwilling to understand them. Creationists don't even have evidence, and they frequently misrepresent the facts. Kind of like you're doing right now.

"I am not sure you have said you know anything is true and I am certain you haven't provided any proof regarding our conversations, only evidence."

Ok, so you admit you were wrong in your previous posts. In many cases, evidence is the best there is. You say 'only evidence' but that's a hell of a lot more than Creationism has to offer. Meaning that evolution is the more logical conclusion.

I think you're misunderstanding the burden of proof. Try looking it up. The idea is that a positive assertion requires justification, not the negative assertion. I know the word proof is in the term, but it includes justification in the form of evidence.

When it comes to evolution in the present, there is proof. We can directly observe speciation and beneficial mutations happening right now. When it comes to propositions about the distant past, sometimes evidence is the best there is, and I've never said otherwise.

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/24/2019 02:11 AM

You have made positive assertions over and over yet think that the alternative views are the ones with the burden of proof. The issue is that you offer your evidence as something that should never be challenged and as showing your assertions should be treated as true.


You've heard of our greatest scientific theories: the theory of evolution, the Big Bang theory, the theory of gravity. You've also heard of the concept of a proof, and the claims that certain pieces of evidence prove the validities of these theories. Fossils, genetic inheritance, and DNA prove the theory of evolution. The Hubble expansion of the Universe, the evolution of stars, galaxies, and heavy elements, and the existence of the cosmic microwave background prove the Big Bang theory. And falling objects, GPS clocks, planetary motion, and the deflection of starlight prove the theory of gravity.

Except that's a complete lie. While they provide very strong evidence for those theories, they aren't proof. In fact, when it comes to science, proving anything is an impossibility.

................................

................................


In science, at its best, the process is very similar, but with a caveat: you never know when your postulates, rules, or logical steps will suddenly cease to describe the Universe. You never know when your assumptions will suddenly become invalid. And you never know whether the rules you successfully applied for situations A, B, and C will successfully apply for situation D.

It's a leap of faith to assume that it will, and while these are often good leaps of faith, you cannot prove that these leaps are always valid. If the laws of nature change over time, or behave differently under different conditions, or in different directions or locations, or aren't applicable to the system you're dealing with, your predictions will be wrong. And that's why everything we do in science, no matter how well it gets tested, is always preliminary.

As I have said, you demand proof for assertions by others but offer far less for your own assertions than you demand.

That's a lie. You're just making things up now. Tell me which assertion I failed to back up and I'll correct it. I don't think alternate views have the burden of proof, I clearly said the burden of proof is on the positive claim. I offer my evidence as something that can't be challenged? That's complete bullshit. Challenge my evidence all you want, but I doubt you're able to. The reason most scientists accept evolution is because the evidence has justified it beyond reasonable doubt.




What are you talking about? I didn't demand proof from anyone. You just keep pretending that I do in order to accuse me of a double standard that I don't have. This is a pathetically desperate and dishonest tactic. I demand evidence from Creationists, but they don't have even a fraction of the evidence that evolution has. Do you understand that a proposition with evidence is more justified than one without?

That paragraph just confirmed exactly what I told you. Science doesn't deal in proof. It provides explanatory models. I can't prove that I'm not in a coma right now, but that doesn't mean I am. The proposition that I am in a coma requires evidence to justify it.

You're confused because I referred to the burden of proof, which is a term that is used in law and philosophy. Here's an analogy.

I propose that God made your great, great grandmother out of clay spontaneously. She didn't have any parents. If you think I'm wrong, prove that your great great grandmother had parents.

Do you see the problem? It doesn't matter if you can't prove she had parents, that doesn't make me correct. The burden of proof is on me to justify the proposition that your great, great grandmother was made of clay. Get it?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/24/2019 03:28 AM

YES I do

The burden of proof is on me to justify the proposition that your great, great grandmother was made of clay. Get it?


The burden of proof is on you to justify evolution.


[link to www.forbes.com (secure)]

You can't, not even beyond any reasonable doubt.

Until someone can demonstrate abiogenesis, how the big bang came about, where all the matter came from for the big bang in the first place etc etc etc you have no more than those believing in a mysterious spaghetti monster.

Again, I can prove evolution happens in the present. When it comes to the distant past, there is only evidence. I've given you evidence. An explanation with evidence is more rational than one without. Which is why the scientific community doesn't take Creationism seriously.



That's absurd. We don't have to demonstrate abiogenesis or the big bang to support evolution. They are separate theories. The germ theory of disease doesn't require me to demonstrate how the universe started. Electricity theory doesn't require me to show how electrons came into existence. You're speaking gibberish.

Evolution has been justified beyond reasonable doubt. What is your explanation for nested heirarchies, ERVs and the fossil record? Why do they all coincidentally match the predictions of evolution theory?

Last Edited by Spur-Man on 01/24/2019 03:56 AM

In essence you are claiming that a God didn't create the universe and ultimately man, something different to creationism. Your words express that over and over. You claim that creationists can't show that there is a God or that God created man and in doing so, by extension, you are claiming there is no God.

NOT once have I claimed evolution doesn't exist, I have stated that you haven't shown it to be any more true than a religious person claiming God started it all yet you completely discount his hypothesis just like you discount my classroom hypothesis even though you can offer nothing better to replace it.

There isn't a court in America that has ruled creationism is false or that there is no God. Likewise they haven't ruled that evolution is true, only that evolution is science and that only science is allowed to be taught in schools.

I have posted links from many universities and scientists that clearly say that evolution is a theory which generally holds true but has issues which, as YET, the scientific community have not resolved.

Dinosaur use to be called dragons and they were real even a good 150 years ago.

No, we would have found dinosaur DNA if they were around even 3 million years ago. zero dino DNA debunks young earth

There are so many species of dinosaurs, they wouldn't call them all dragons

Last Edited by Kakarot on 01/24/2019 04:29 AM

False. Evolution theory doesn't address the existence of God. Evolution theory proposes that different taxa diverged from common ancestors through descent with inherent modification. We directly observe populations diverging through this process in the present. Creationists reject this proposition, claiming that different taxa independently appeared supernaturally.



False. I've presented the ERV evidence which indicates that different taxa are related. I've presented the fossil evidence that indicates the gradual modification and diversification of different taxa. The sequence that these taxa appear perfectly matches the degree that ERVs are shared. Like wise, nested hierarchies indicate a sequence of divergence that perfectly matches the ERV and fossil evidence. All of these different facts all corroborate the same story. It is better than anything you (or Creationists) have presented.



Ok. Fine. Evolution is still the best explanation.

Bring all science disciplines a others add history, now, the geological data, has a problem that does not show the evolution theory an none of the maternal that would be need. It does show the way the earth form thought, if you want how it was found to be, go to the book of genesis, it just as stated there. The core samples is there they find layers of life forms, the layers of where the earth layers long ago, stacks of the lives of every thing that lives and come about is in these layers. They have tried to go even farther in every country in the world, same.

I know people just refuse to believe we were a off shoot of primates, well not really, the DNA is similar with mankind so is dog, cat, cows, birds, fish, trees and plants and all other things, it has plans a laid out plan for what was being created, if man creates to similar things, did you and this is how you imagined to do so, and they are different only some of the material is alike only is a whole other product. I hope that simple sentence is understandable. The dna is coded in our way of thinking the way it lays out and changes if what comes to be, it become plants, trees, insects, and animal of all different kinds all the different animals a one special one mankind. We are special every one of mankind is special male and female created he them, so forth and multiple and replenish the earth, it was our being something else was wiped of the earth. And this all has been a dance, man fight against his creator, so do teens as they grow up, we are in his likeness and imagine, thanks dad.

Just debunk ERVs, it should be so easy if evolution is wrong; but that's not possible since ERVs have the same genes as retroviruses and that ERVs are still occurring today.

Question

If humans are the result of genetic engineering by aliens and it was modern human ancestors that were genetically modified (hence the missing link) would the ERV's still be present?

First, the missing link is an outdated term. We have discovered many hominin species. When we arrange them chronologically (according to various dating methods) they progressively become more human over the course of millions of years. Here's an image:

[link to ncse.com (secure)]

To answer your question though, yes. If we were to genetically modify a human being today, it could still contain the ERVs that we share with chimps.

So the view of many that modern human are not due to evolution but genetic modification could be true and your ERV's would still appear as they do??

Many claim the Bible is just a representation of all this, the stories of the ancients and where they/we came from.

Last Edited by newtome on 01/24/2019 06:01 AM

Yes. If hominins evolved, then aliens came and genetically modified a hominin to produce humans, then the same ERV's could still be present.

However, the hominin fossil record does indicate that they progressively became more human-like over millions of years.

Just putting it out there..................................

I've considered the possibility myself.

You have no idea how much of a retard you sound when you use this old worn argumentation, usually spewed out from fanatics ignorant mouths.

Have you considered the opposite? That you are the biased one? Have you ever tried to educate yourself? I mean, really study what evolution is, what DNA and RNA are, really dig into scientific subjects. I can tell almost for certain that you never actually did it. How? You use terminology that are not among those with a deeper(or even a superficial) knowledge of the subjects. And more, have you ever studied logical fallacies? You'll see that your argumentation is based on many of them loosely sewed together in a frail and clumsy way. And of course your answer will be "yes I did!" and you will insist on the same line of failed argumentation again when questioned, showing again that: if you're not lying, then you didn't understood. So its either one, you're a liar or plain stupid. There is also a third option when its a bit of both, allied with a good portion of fanaticism.

Yes, fanaticism. To me, you're not different than any of those towelheads whom blow themselves up. You're not different than a Jim Jones or Marshall Applewhite.

Only a few examples of the science without taking history examples into consideration, the dead dragons aka dinosaurs, are drawn in not to long ago, say 150 years and back, showing these dragon aka dinosaurs found today. Carbon dating is crap, it really is, core samples are not, and the rates they find in the layer to not comput with these these so called experts who seem to not be able to let anything outside their script into the picture to make it a full picture of what really happened. The oldest life died out, the earth cleaned them out, full front total cleaned washed into the earth. Then there came other life forms much later. The later was called Mammals and the other cold blooded beasts were here too. Woolly Mammoths here with man hunting them. Dodo bird hear in the North America when Europeans came, they killed them and ate them until they became extinct. Got this, man ate the dinosaurs strange as it seems. Does man eat fish sure, does man eat alligators sure, rodent sure, rabbits sure, frogs sure, everything is eatable if you feeding your family and keeping hunger ate bay.

Where do you put the bones, out side in a pile away from the camps. Now, this is a no brainer for a person who studies all the habits of man down to their eating habits.

It nice for man they decide to raise the animals instead of killing and eating everything out there. I do believe Germany would have eaten them themselves after WWI and the crash of their currency, hunger was a problem and bark from trees were even part of the diet.

Take a stroll into the history of man and try to get into their ways their thoughts their time, how hard it really was. It one thing after another back then, say after around AD 200 when something every bad happened, the cold and the disease broke out, so many died they could walk for days without seeing another living soul. This is how the cycles are, the deaths and the rebuilding, it happened many times in history, history piled on history and this evolution was not part of it. It was survival of the fittest, just a Darwin dad and grandpa taught him, he was part of the group who thought they were the best to survive. Figure out how all this helped them survive. It sure did help them. It also weak all of the others mentally. Survival of the fittest, is not a joke. If you do not learn from the past you will repeat it, not only from nature and other place use this term, so did the torah or old testament. People repeat the lies of the past and forget the past that need to be remembered.

If something coming should you not work to help save people, food put back and thing to keep them warm and safe? They just talk about who right a wrong about bones when the history told the bones were not that old, not if they were killing the same one then or the left overs.

They found mammoth DNA.

If Earth is young or dinosaurs were around 150 years ago, why, of all the dinosaur fossils, are there ZERO fossils with dinosaur DNA in them? Or any other species that are thought to be extinct more than 6 million years ago.

You probably think they use carbon dating to date the Earth like every other creationist

Last Edited by Kakarot on 01/24/2019 07:00 AM

Are you sure mammoths aren't still roaming around in Siberia?

The kind of person that is impressed by nothing and no evidence will ever suffice due to bias, prejudice, closedmindedness and ofcourse casual god hating pop culture


yw.

Great story bro.

If evolution is true, then what? Nothing matters. There's no such thing as truth in evolution, no justice, no rationality, there's just nothing and by believing in such nonsense i would win or lose exactly, nothing.


On a sidenote, it amuses me very much that every evotard on this board casually walks around with the tablets of logical fallacies, just like our friend moses ran around with his tablets.

You have no argument.

You should try again.

Feels like I touched a nerve here... So YOU KNOW deep down that YOUR life is meaningless, that without your fanaticism you're nothing but an ignorant fool. If this is bothering to you, just educate yourself and break the shackles of ignorance! Become fearless, become a better human being. Your fanaticism is only dragging you down to an increasingly darker abyss of superstition and mysticism.

You say "if evolution is true then nothing matters". On the contrary! Evolution IS true, no matter how much you say it isn't, you yield the benefits of its understanding, your children and your grand-children will benefit even more. Its because we understanding it and can predict, research and perfect based on it, that medicine is today making people live longer and healthier. Diseases can and are being eradicated(although your fellow fanatics anti-vaxers are not exactly helping with it) and treatments are becoming less and less invasive, more and more effective. The fallacy on your thinking is that "a designer must have done it" when its exactly the opposite. A good way for you to understand it is the "sentient puddle" argument. Since explaining it will probably sort no effect on you, here is a video:

Then how about YOU show that evolution is true. From the first microbe to where we are today.

If you can't then it is just you saying words and wanting to argue with followers of God.

Another nerve touched huh? Wow! I'm on fire today!