The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[JMorris]

Or bacteria that simply existed and adapted to the free food DuPont manufactured for them.

im not sure if this is funny or sad. quite a bit of both i think

how did the bacteria adapt themselves to be able to "eat" a synthetic (synthetic means man made btw) material? could it be.......... evolution?

 

[JMorris]

if your at all interested in learning about evolution, then this link would be a good start.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html

*edit* sorry i gave the wrong link

 

[RND]

"Sounds like my favorite book of myths came up with the notion long before science did."

Giving your myth writers the benefit of the doubt and assuming "kinds" refers to species then yes, they got it right. Not a very insightful or profound observation but correct. As far as it goes.

None the less the discovery was made long before earth had anything resembling a scientist.

But we since learned that "kinds" - species - evolve.

So then man could never have evolved from apes.

Like produces like for sure. But the "like" being produced changes over time.

So species change? Yet we see no evidence for this present;y. Odd don't ya think?

Just as no child is an exact copy of his parent small changes repeatedly selected for produce changes SO different that a whole new population - species - is produced.

Really? That's quite fanciful. What evidence do we see of such things taking place. Surely we should see this happening in some form in the animal kingdom then.

But then you already knew all that. Since you have announced you KNOW this cannot be true you are quite familiar with why it can't be true.

Yes.

Or are you?

I am aware of the evolutionist fanciful and ridiculous claims.

Perhaps you could grace us with the benefit of the scientific evidence you have relied on to come to this conclusion.

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to answer some of my questions first.

 

[RND]

im not sure if this is funny or sad. quite a bit of both i think

Exactly how I feel.

how did the bacteria adapt themselves to be able to "eat" a synthetic (synthetic means man made btw) material?

I don't know. I love to find out though.

could it be.......... evolution?

Did the bacteria become something difference in the process? No. Then they adapted, they didn't evolve.

 

[RND]

if your at all interested in learning about evolution, then this link would be a good start.

Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions

*edit* sorry i gave the wrong link

Passing the buck? Hoping PBS can explain it all for you so you don't have to? Oh, and you know what they say about TV don't you!

 

[JMorris]

Passing the buck? Hoping PBS can explain it all for you so you don't have to? Oh, and you know what they say about TV don't you!

yea, PBS is such a controversial source. certainly cant trust them

your on this thread, you must have some interest in evolution, so why not read it? im certainly not an expert on evolution, so im sure that can explain it better than i can.

or are you just here to argue against it? does it matter to you what the evidence to support the theory is?

 

[Kerr]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. You mean bacteria and viruses evolve but never change into anything else? If that's the case how did fish grow legs and walk on land as the evolutionist like to tell us?

Evolution has to do with change, to put it simple. It does not have to change into something else, just a matter of genetic change from generation to generation. It does not have a direction, there is no end goal a bacteria tries to evolve into. When I said change into something, I meant a more complex organism. My point was that evolution does not require that. Could have put it in a better way.

If a 'new strain of viruses' emerge are they not still viruses? So a new strain is really just a different type of virus.

Of course they are still virus, but that does not make so evolution is not true. All it takes is a change from one generation to the next. It can be for the good or bad, if it is for the bad the change will probably "fall out", but if it is for the good it is more likely to remain. In either case, it is evolution.

As for the strain thing, I don´t know, it depends on how you classify them. The people who deal with it seems to call all flu viruses for, well, some sort of flu, so they are all classified under that.

 

[Kerr]

Did the bacteria become something difference in the process? No. Then they adapted, they didn't evolve.

Which is evolution.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Here is proof that the ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence. The evidence that is presented below wasn't around when the ToE was formed by Darwin. So what we have is a theory presented then the data being interpreted to support the theory.

Look at your argument...
Claim 1: ToE didnt come from looking at THE evidence
Reason?: The evidence BELOW wasnt around
Conclusion: First a theory was presented, then data came and was being interpreted to support the theory.

This "chain" of statements is "obviously" full of gaps. I am not going through all of them. Just some hints:
1) Who says that "the" evidence for evolution is only the quoted text?
2) What about evidence did Darwin present for his theory as well as evidence other people had at the time?
3) If your conclusion would be correct then we still had darwins theory. Actually however ToE today looks quite different from Darwins work in many aspects.

But of course what you are lacking (what most ToE "opponents" are lacking) is a proper alternative. Even one that is "only" equal and not better.

 

[RND]

yea, PBS is such a controversial source. certainly cant trust them

It has nothing to do with being controversial or not. It has everything to do with expecting to learn anything of depth from TV.

your on this thread, you must have some interest in evolution, so why not read it?

The only thing about evolution I'm interested in is proving how fallacious it is.

im certainly not an expert on evolution, so im sure that can explain it better than i can.

Just goes to show one doen't have to be an expert in the lie to believe them.

or are you just here to argue against it?

That's why I'm here. Entertainment.

does it matter to you what the evidence to support the theory is?

That's just it. No one has offered anything that remotely appears to be evidence. Just speculation. Lots of speculation.

 

[RND]

Which is evolution.

Adaptation is evolution? Since when? During the winter when man adapts to his climate by putting on a heavy winter coat is not proof that man has evolved.

 

[RND]

Evolution has to do with change, to put it simple. It does not have to change into something else, just a matter of genetic change from generation to generation. It does not have a direction, there is no end goal a bacteria tries to evolve into. When I said change into something, I meant a more complex organism. My point was that evolution does not require that. Could have put it in a better way.

So then fish didn't grow legs then?

Of course they are still virus, but that does not make so evolution is not true. All it takes is a change from one generation to the next. It can be for the good or bad, if it is for the bad the change will probably "fall out", but if it is for the good it is more likely to remain. In either case, it is evolution.

If something doesn't change, in this case, a bacterium or virus, then how can it be said to evolve?

As for the strain thing, I don´t know, it depends on how you classify them. The people who deal with it seems to call all flu viruses for, well, some sort of flu, so they are all classified under that.

Exactly.

 

[RND]

But of course what you are lacking (what most ToE "opponents" are lacking) is a proper alternative. Even one that is "only" equal and not better.

ToE sounds like Wizard of Oz voodoo if you ask me. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Only the "enlightened" can understand the nonsense that is ToE! What a joke!

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

That's just it. No one has offered anything that remotely appears to be evidence. Just speculation. Lots of speculation.

I see this differently.

But thic claim aside ... surely you have some better alternative dont you? If evolution is so wrong, what then in your view is correct?

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer, Philosopher, 1788-1860

Interesting quote... seems evolution has entered the third stage for most educated people already

 

[Kerr]

Adaptation is evolution? Since when? During the winter when man adapts to his climate by putting on a heavy winter coat is not proof that man has evolved.

Evolution is as stated genetic difference from one generation to the next. If the adaptation has to do with genetics, it is evolution. And since bacterias adapt that way, what you spoke of was evolution.

 

[Kerr]

If something doesn't change, in this case, a bacterium or virus, then how can it be said to evolve?

They do change.

 

[JMorris]

Adaptation is evolution? Since when? During the winter when man adapts to his climate by putting on a heavy winter coat is not proof that man has evolved.

is putting on a heavy winter coat a physical adaptation? did the man grow the winter coat out of his skin or something? of course not, he chose to put it on

did the bacteria simply "choose" to "eat" the nylon? of course not, it cant simply decide to consume and process a material for which is it physically unable to. it has to change physically to do so. that would make it different from the bacteria that couldnt digest nylon. thats evolution. an elephant cant simply "decide" to eat meat, it would have to change physically to be able to process the meat. its digestion system would have to change, among probably other things. and this new meat-eating elephant wouldnt be the same thing as the plant eating elephants; itd be something different, a different species.

i would think, that if you actually wanted to argue against TOE effectively you'd try and learn something about it. but your just making stuff up because you know nothing about it. your debating from ignorance, so until you actually learn something about TOE, your arguments arent going to pass critical evaluation.

like i said, read the link i provided to you, and atleast learn some of the basics of TOE. until then, your arguments are basically worthless

 

[Kerr]

Exactly.

Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, because it is purely a classification issue, not a "biological" one.

 

[Kerr]

So then fish didn't grow legs then?

One, the evolution you speak of is just lots and lots of smaller changes. Two, how am I supposed to know? I wasn´t there, and I am not an expert at the subject.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

ToE sounds like Wizard of Oz voodoo if you ask me. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

Only the "enlightened" can understand the nonsense that is ToE! What a joke!

You didn't answer my question. I repeat it therefore:
"But of course what you are lacking (what most ToE "opponents" are lacking) is a proper alternative. Even one that is "only" equal and not better."