Evolution

Observeable and repeatable:



And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.

Observeable and repeatable:



And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.

LOL

This is the "observable" proof that one "species" changed into another??? So tell me, what did the bacteria become after it evolved in this experiment? Please enlighten us.

NO ONE denies adaptation or natural selection. It's laughable how simple science is labelled with "Evolution" to give this religion some credibility.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 14, 2017, 12:35:05 PM

Observeable and repeatable:



And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.

LOL

This is the "observable" proof that one "species" changed into another??? So tell me, what did the bacteria become after it evolved in this experiment? Please enlighten us.

NO ONE denies adaptation or natural selection. It's laughable how simple science is labelled with "Evolution" to give this religion some credibility.

But that is evolution.

Observeable and repeatable:


And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.

I'm not very much into bacteria. But I think thise isn't really evolution, it's at best "part wise evolution". I'm not 100% sure but I think the gen for antibiotica resistence is already in a plasmide, but only the bacteria with those plasmide will survive and thus multiply.
When we talk about evolution, we generally mean a change of DNA; whereas for antibiotica resistane the bacterial chromosome is not changed.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 14, 2017, 12:35:05 PM

Observeable and repeatable:


And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.

I'm not very much into bacteria. But I think thise isn't really evolution, it's at best "part wise evolution". I'm not 100% sure but I think the gen for antibiotica resistence is already in a plasmide, but only the bacteria with those plasmide will survive and thus multiply.
When we talk about evolution, we generally mean a change of DNA; whereas for antibiotica resistane the bacterial chromosome is not changed.

It can be from the plasmids or from bacterial DNA mutations. I'm not sure which is happening in the video. On mobile, so can't look it up right now. I'm sure you all can figure it out .

There are also examples of speciation in lizards and flies.

No he didn't. He provided this link: https://phys.org/news/2014-10-textbook-knowledge-reconfirmed-radioactive-substances.html which does NOT answer the link I provided. The link he provided is even refuted on the very same page lol.

Bull crap. Feel free to quote the exact place where it refutes itself.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on August 14, 2017, 12:35:05 PM

Observeable and repeatable:



And don't give me any of that micro/macro nonsense. It's the same thing.

LOL

This is the "observable" proof that one "species" changed into another??? So tell me, what did the bacteria become after it evolved in this experiment? Please enlighten us.

NO ONE denies adaptation or natural selection. It's laughable how simple science is labelled with "Evolution" to give this religion some credibility.

"Bacteria" is not a species. It's a domain, that is extremely large and contains . An example of things that belong in the same domain (eukaryota): a human, an amoeba, a frog, a mushroom and a sequoia.

I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video, but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.

Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time. The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 30, 2017, 01:33:56 PM

Quote from: User324 on July 09, 2017, 02:23:59 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2017, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM

Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.

Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.

Are you trolling or just dumb?


Well, gun as profile pic; so you're most likely 'murican and thus the second assumption is probably correct.

So rather than debate you lower yourself to insults. Nice.

Comparing it to your level, insults appear to be rather sophisticated.

Again with the insults.

Anyway, did you even read the article you've posted?

What's wrong with it?

Also, noone said the current model of evolution has to be 100% accurate.

Neither am I'm claiming such. However there comes a point where a mistake as big as this calls into question the validity of current methods to substantiate evolution.

New research that gives newer (better) results might lead to small adaptions within the model. That's how science works.

Sure.

So, what do you believe in? Are you a creationist?

Yes in fact.

And, since your from the land of freedom: are there actually schools that do not teach evolution? Are really that many people not believing in evolution?

Yes there are schools and this discussion is rather prominent here in the US.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 30, 2017, 01:39:31 PM

Quote from: TotesReptilian on July 09, 2017, 10:01:20 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2017, 06:55:22 PM

Quote from: Physical Experimenter on May 02, 2017, 12:51:52 AM

Evolution is fact. It is only called theory in the sense that anything we know could not be true, however it is a true scientific theory as it is open to question and yet has not been disproved. I am willing to answer any questions you have on this topic.

Cool. Been awhile since I've been in one of these. If evolution is true, then how come we find fossils that supposedly evolved later from another animal below the actual animal it supposedly evolved from in the geologic column.

An example would be nice.

They found a human fossil in the KBS tuff which was originally dated far older than what the theory stated humans came into being.

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/the-pigs-took-it-all/

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/cavemen/stone-axes-push-anthropological-view-humans-back-time/

That's not what I see at all in these links.

In the first link it is stated that the date was found to be incorrect and later corrected. How the date was found to be incorrect is not stated, it is AiG's own interpretation that it was because it didn't fit the evolutionary model, so it really isn't evidence of anything. It's just that AiG is a dusgusting cesspool of misinformation and fallacies that have been debunked multiple times that is hell bent on twisting everything to fit its agenda.

Ok, then how about this?

http://www.icr.org/article/richard-leakeys-skull-1470/

The second link is a pretty desperate attempt. It seems like the author decided that an axe that seems modern for its age is a fundamental contradiction that can't be explained.

Can you explain in detail or give a specific example?

It's pretty funny how for all the whining about carbon and radiometric dating, no creationist has been able to demonstrate they are incorrect.

That's not true. I only gave two (now three) links. That doesn't represent the entire creation argument.

"Bacteria" is not a species. It's a domain, that is extremely large and contains . An example of things that belong in the same domain (eukaryota): a human, an amoeba, a frog, a mushroom and a sequoia.

I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video, but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.

Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time. The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

"Bacteria" is not a species.

I'm not the one posting videos of bacteria adapting as proof of "evolution"

I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video

Then why are you defending it?

but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.

No you haven't. You apply other scientific facts as "speciation" just like you apply adaptation or natural selection to be "evolution"

Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time

Then why call it evolution?

The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.

And then lived happily ever after with the princess? Stop making up stories and provide evidence. No guesses, assumptions and "may have" "could have" tales.

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.

There were already like a ton of links posted disproofing every point made by creationists.
Or they could google it themselves, but research isn't their thing anyway so...

There were already like a ton of links posted disproofing every point made by creationists.
Or they could google it themselves, but research isn't their thing anyway so...

Well, logic isn't their thing either, at it's core evolution simply says if you don't reproduce your genes don't pass on to the next generation.

It's more of a logical certainty, than any kind of belief system. 

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

It's cute when people call other people dumb while ridiculing themselves.

Quote

"Bacteria" is not a species.

I'm not the one posting videos of bacteria adapting as proof of "evolution"

But you are the one making the "they are still bacteria" claims while failing to realize that bacteria is a huge domain.

Quote

I'm not sure if speciation has occurred in this video

Then why are you defending it?

Because it still shows a form of evolution, even though there hasn't been enough time for speciation to occur.

Quote

but I have given links where speciation has occurred, and in animals, not just bacteria.

No you haven't. You apply other scientific facts as "speciation" just like you apply adaptation or natural selection to be "evolution"

I "apply other scientific facts as speciation"? WTF does that mean? Sort out your word salad. I gave you a link where speciation has been observed either directly or indirectly and in one case recreated in a lab. That proves it is not only possible, but that it actually does happen. Maybe you should re-read the link.

Quote

Evolution is just adaptation, but over a long span of time

Then why call it evolution?

Adaptation and natural selection are the mechanisms that guide evolution. A species evolving to another one is the result of it adapting continuously to the point where it becomes much different from the original and can no longer interbreed.

Quote

The lizard grows an extra gut muscle in the first 50 years, then after 100 years it grows a new lung muscle then after 150 years it grows another asshole and this continues until it can't interbreed with its ancestors and becomes its own thing.

And then lived happily ever after with the princess? Stop making up stories and provide evidence. No guesses, assumptions and "may have" "could have" tales.

[/quote]

The evidence is the lizards that did grow a new gut structure, a different head, and developed a different diet in a Croatian island within about 50 years:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html

All I did was explain to you that the same mechanism can further differentiate them in the future to the point of becoming completely different species.

Quote from: observer on August 18, 2017, 04:40:57 PM

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.

Once again, you geniuses, we're not the ones who call our unprovable religious beliefs "science" - so what's there to explain?

Quote from: Rayzor on August 18, 2017, 11:21:20 PM

Quote from: observer on August 18, 2017, 04:40:57 PM

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.

Once again, you geniuses, we're not the ones who call our unprovable religious beliefs "science" - so what's there to explain?

We're not geniuses. At least I'm not.
We're just not as dumb as you creationists.

Quote from: observer on August 18, 2017, 04:40:57 PM

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

I'm not even going to bother quoting your fantasy religious pseudoscience.  I'll just post the replies. Much easier, easier than dismantling and shredding the ridiculous evolution fantasy.

1. You post videos showing adaptation and call it evolution. It's like if a person became immune to mosquito bites (which can happen) "evolution" and saying this is how we evolved from a dead rock.

2. Re: "Apply other scientific facts." Okay let me dumb it down for you. After all you do believe we were literally fish and monkeys once. Other scientific facts refers to actual science, the real science as has always been that is repeatable, observable, etc. etc. and then somehow apply those scientific "facts" to your pseudoscientific fantasy and call it "FACT" - was that easier or do I need to dumb it down more?

3. "Adaptation and natural selection are the mechanisms that guide evolution." lol - adaptation/NS guides evolution? No wonder the above number 2 didn't register in your head.

4. "The evidence is the lizards that did grow a new gut structure" how desperate are evolutionists? Humans can grow large guts too. So what did this lizard become? Did the DNA change? Did it grow wings? Did it walk on 2 legs? Here's some basic points for you from that Evolutionist channels web site. NatGeo is a MASSIVE promoter of big bang and evolution. It's not credible to many real scientists.

Genetic testing on the Pod Mrcaru lizards confirmed that the modern population of more than 5,000 Italian wall lizards are all descendants of the original ten lizards left behind in the 1970s

So it wasn't observed at all. Just genetic testing which would have matched on many grounds. Even paternity tests have been proven to be wrong. Even if they were descendants, they're STILL LIZARDS. Same family members who grow up in different parts of the world end up having different features according to the environment. Even brothers. Check it up. So this is evolution to you right? (pointing at number 2 again)

The new species wiped out the indigenous lizard populations...

So they're new species now? Why does that word have so many different meanings?

The transplanted lizards adapted to their new environment...

Oh man, now it's adaptation? I thought they evolved?

...in ways that expedited their evolution physically

ah there's the reference back to evolution. State a fact and squeeze evolution in there (pointing at number 2 again)

It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said.

Wait wait wait.. so growing muscles and body parts increasing size in lizards is the same as a human growing something brand new? Evolution logic 101

Quote from: Rayzor on August 18, 2017, 11:21:20 PM

Quote from: observer on August 18, 2017, 04:40:57 PM

You evolutionists sounds dumber (in the literal sense) the more you try to explain yourself.

As opposed to no explanation at all from creationists.

Once again, you geniuses, we're not the ones who call our unprovable religious beliefs "science" - so what's there to explain?

OK at this point I'm becoming more convinced that you're just a troll.

No you idiot, it's not adaptation of individuals, it's adaptation of the species as a whole. The bacteria breed, and their offsprings are able to progress, it's not the same individuals.

2. Re: "Apply other scientific facts." Okay let me dumb it down for you. After all you do believe we were literally fish and monkeys once. Other scientific facts refers to actual science, the real science as has always been that is repeatable, observable, etc. etc. and then somehow apply those scientific "facts" to your pseudoscientific fantasy and call it "FACT" - was that easier or do I need to dumb it down more?

You didn't dumb it down, it was already extremely dumb and made no sense. Now it makes... I don't want to say less sense, it just doesn't make sense. What facts do we "apply"? Do you know what "apply" means? Are you trying to say something that makes sense and are unable to, or is this how it was in your mind?

3. "Adaptation and natural selection are the mechanisms that guide evolution." lol - adaptation/NS guides evolution? No wonder the above number 2 didn't register in your head.

Yes, various species adapt to their environments via natural selection, and eventually they evolve to different species. Note, the species as a WHOLE adapts to the environment, not the individuals.

4. "The evidence is the lizards that did grow a new gut structure" how desperate are evolutionists? Humans can grow large guts too. So what did this lizard become? Did the DNA change? Did it grow wings? Did it walk on 2 legs? Here's some basic points for you from that Evolutionist channels web site. NatGeo is a MASSIVE promoter of big bang and evolution. It's not credible to many real scientists.

You do realize that the lizard species developed a new intestinal muscle right? You do realize that it was not the same original individuals that grew the new muscles, but its offsprings via natural selection, right? You do realize that it was not the same original individuals that grew larger intestines, right? You do realize that the changes can only be explained by genetic differences right? You do realize that what you think are "real scientists" are biased YEC dipshits right? You do realize that that has nothing to do with religion, but if you tell to a real scientist about ICR he's going to die laughing, right? You do realize how many sources there are confirming the same lizard experiment, right?

So it wasn't observed at all.

You're getting even more desperate. If by observed you mean "there was a dude looking at them at all times", no, it wasn't observed. Luckily that is not what an observation is in science.

Just genetic testing which would have matched on many grounds. Even paternity tests have been proven to be wrong.

Oh so now you're just hoping that by some insane coincidence all that research was wrong. The desperation! How often are the genetic paternity tests wrong? What kind of evidence do you want to accept something, if you're just going to say it might be wrong, without saying how it could be wrong? Besides, similar species of lizard did not exist at the island before, and it borders on impossible that other lizards would be somehow introduced to the island.

Even if they were descendants, they're STILL LIZARDS.

So? What, did you expect them to turn into dinosaurs in 40 years? According to the modern understanding of biology, it would be impossible, so you're arguing strawmen. Actually I'm sure that even if the lizards turned to alligators you'd still complain that they're still reptiles. "Still lizards" is not an excuse, this is a clear example of the mechanisms of evolution in action.

Same family members who grow up in different parts of the world end up having different features according to the environment.

If you paid attention you'd see that the differences were way larger than that and are due to a different DNA. It's one thing for a sibling to be shorter or darker skinned or with a slimmer nose in one environment, and another thing to grow a different muscle group or a different skull structure.

So they're new species now? Why does that word have so many different meanings?

It has one meaning which you do not understand. The species was new TO THE ISLAND. Speciation has not occurred yet as far as I know, they probably can still breed with the original wall lizard species. Speciation takes a lot more generations to occur. But it's a completely new subspecies.

Oh man, now it's adaptation? I thought they evolved?

They're not the same individuals, THE SPECIES AS A WHOLE ADAPTED. Let's see how many times I have to say this to get it through your head.

Wait wait wait.. so growing muscles and body parts increasing size in lizards is the same as a human growing something brand new?

Yes, because they DID grow something new. They grew cecal valves. Pay attention.

Here's a few more sources that explain the same thing:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/23/still-just-a-lizard/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_wall_lizard#Rapid_adaptation

The relevant papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/

You can only read the abstract of this one, unless you have a membership or something: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0030-1299.2007.15989.x/abstract;jsessionid=1624F57485E8A3C2100974D72D458E13.f04t01

No you idiot

You think we came from a non-living material randomly by chance
You think we "evolved" from other currently existing animals
You think the world start when nothing exploded to create everything
You see adaption and scream evolution

So you calling me an idiot means as much to me as your religious believe does. I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words

You think we came from a non-living material randomly by chance

Yes,  but the way you state it is wrong.   The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon.

You think we "evolved" from other currently existing animals

No,  someone is misleading you,  we have common ancestry with some currently living animals,  if you want to go back a few billion years we have common ancestry with all living things.

You think the world start when nothing exploded to create everything

Yes,  except, substitute universe instead of world,  and I suspect you aren't up on current cosmology,

You see adaption and scream evolution

Yes.  It's same mechanism.   If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever.     ( Do you have children? )

I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words

So that's how you approach learning,  no wonder you remain ignorant.   

I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words

Unsurprising. Come back when you learn how to read, and aren't scared that what you're going to read disproves your nonsense.

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

You see adaption and scream evolution

Yes.  It's same mechanism.   If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever.     ( Do you have children? )

Oh don't say that, you're going to confuse him. He doesn't understand the concept of a species instead of an individual adapting to the environment.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 19, 2017, 07:53:42 PM

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

You see adaption and scream evolution

Yes.  It's same mechanism.   If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever.     ( Do you have children? )

Oh don't say that, you're going to confuse him. He doesn't understand the concept of a species instead of an individual adapting to the environment.

Sorry,  bout that.

Based on the various things he's said I suspect he's not all that hard to confuse.   What if I just say, 

Populations evolve, individuals don't.

Well, adaption and evolution isn't the same mechanism.

(Of course depending on how you define the terms)

Well, adaption and evolution isn't the same mechanism.

(Of course depending on how you define the terms)

Yes, point taken.   Not that it matters for this discussion.

Well, adaption and evolution isn't the same mechanism.

(Of course depending on how you define the terms)

Adaptation of the species, not the individual.

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

You think we came from a non-living material randomly by chance

Yes,  but the way you state it is wrong.   The building blocks for DNA have been found elsewhere in the universe, and they aren't uncommon.

The way I stated it is exactly what your belief is. It just burns evolutionists because no matter how much you wrap excrement in scented tissues, it's still going to stink inside. You try to make it sound "believable" with "building blocks for DNA" whereas DNA in reality shreds the Darwinian religion to bits. What you stated above means absolutely NOTHING on the origin of life. The fact remains, you believe life came from non-living material randomly by chance and then you call it "Science"

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

You think we "evolved" from other currently existing animals

No,  someone is misleading you,  we have common ancestry with some currently living animals,  if you want to go back a few billion years we have common ancestry with all living things.

Someone is misleading me? You're telling we have a common ancestry which is based on an interpretation of having similar genetic material. Although this equally proves that the design uses the same "building blocks" which we admit is our BELIEF, your interpretation is shamelessly promoted by tax dollars as "Science" - Even grass, plants and trees have similarities which does NOT prove that once upon a time we were trees. Your belief is based on this and no actual Scientific evidence. It's an interpretation, a belief, a religion. Not science.

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

You think the world start when nothing exploded to create everything

Yes,  except, substitute universe instead of world,  and I suspect you aren't up on current cosmology,

Ah, I guess that makes it's Scientifically sound. The world didn't come from NOTHING, that would be daft. The entire physical universe came from an explosion of NOTHING. Yes sure, that makes a lot more sense now. Universe. Got it.

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

You see adaption and scream evolution

Yes.  It's same mechanism.   If you don't reproduce your genes are lost forever.     ( Do you have children? )

So, genetically adapting to a disease for example is the same mechanism as completely changing genetically into something completely different? That's evolution logic known to common sense as "stupid". It's not Science. It's a belief.

Quote from: observer on August 19, 2017, 07:26:23 PM

I didn't read beyond your opening 3 words

So that's how you approach learning,  no wonder you remain ignorant.

I quote: "No you idiot"

That's probably how you learn Evolution. By cursing and ridiculing. I don't need to do that as I have actual responses. I prefer facts. Not beliefs and interpretations labelled as Scientific FACTS. Let religion be in its place. And you're simply not going to fool me with your ridiculous religious beliefs. I already have a religious belief that makes more common sense than your religion does. So don't call ridiculing "learning" because that's how Evolution professors teach kids. I've heard it and seen it and check any Evolution vs Creationism video on YouTube and see how often the Darwinian resorts to personal attacks because he's getting hammered.

I only reply to make myself feel better as I know Evolution believers follow and worship Darwin and have no intention of following any real Science. Just face it, you got NOTHING. Then again, with your Evolution logic, EVERYTHING came from NOTHING so the fact that you have NOTHING you probably think that you have EVERYTHING. A lost cause.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on August 13, 2017, 04:52:33 AM

Quote from: Papa Legba on August 13, 2017, 04:40:51 AM

Like I said, evolution is neither observable nor repeatable & therefore it is not science...

Deaf Dick has a lot of difficulty with science though - he thinks the Universe is Flat you know!

You forgot to misquote me.

No need to...

You're doing a mighty fine job of making yourself look stupid already.

You always do.

Evolution is unobservable, unrepeatable & therefore unscientific.

Unless you own a time machine, perhaps?

Do you own a time machine, Deaf Dick?

You know, like Doctor Who's TARDIS?

Of course, in your case it would be a RE-TARDIS, would it not?

Lol.

Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.

Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.

Inb4 my fan club.

Papa is right tho.
Like I said evolution is the best theory we have to explain origins. Doesn't make it right.

Like the big bang theory or GR, It's just the best we have at this time.

Inb4 my fan club.

I don't know why you're saying this. This applies to every theory ever. Including the shape of the Earth. You're just stating the obvious.