Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[LightofTruth]

By showing the species that existed at different times. Duh. We can determine the ages of the remains and look at the species that exist at a given time and see how the range of species changed over time.

Furthermore, we always find similar species just before any given species, which shows that the new species derived from the older one. Remember this happens in all lines and isn't a one-time thing.

You really need to learn the basics of science. You make such poor strawman arguments that you only make your side look even worse.

Can you show how evolution can make an eye?

 

[LightofTruth]

I am sorry, but this is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. That ape still exists in you.

It is time for you to learn. You clearly do not know enough to argue. If you still oppose the idea of evolution then you might at least have some facts and evidence that you can use to debate the topic.

To use an analogy you would probably laugh at someone that claimed: "Christianity is the belief that you will live forever if you nail a guy to a couple of boards". and then tried to refute Christianity based upon that claim. That is how truly bad your arguments have been so far.

Now now, if he understood evolution, he would find he had
no arguments.

Anyway, it works for the good guys to have the dark
side sbow themselves for the shallow folks they are.

Intelligent people realize how little they really know.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Can you show how evolution can make an eye?

Back to this old canard, eh?

 

[Polymath257]

While I agree with species evolving from ancestor species, you say "but the basic fact that biological species change over time is solid".

How solid is it with everyone? Does everyone accept what we are today evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ansector or do they simply believe and accept species change over time?

The reason I ask is because accepting species change over time is very different than accepting evolution of we evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ancestor.

You realize there were a few steps between bacteria and apes, right? It wasn't just a 'skip billions of years'.

And yes, the evidence for the divergence of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, primates, etc is also solid.

 

[Jose Fly]

Back to this old canard, eh?

Here we go again. Another creationist asking for scientific info, even though we all know that after being provided the info, he'll just make up some weird reason to wave it away.

"It's all just assumption." "That's a biased source." "It has words like 'likely' in it." "It's full of techno-babble."

And round and round it goes....

 

[Polymath257]

Can you show how evolution can make an eye?

Which of many pathways do you want? For the mammalian eye? That for some sort of insect? For an octopus?

Yes, this has been gone over time and time again, including steps for each transition. The possibility of the transitions is shown *by species alive today*.

 

[Jose Fly]

While I agree with species evolving from ancestor species, you say "but the basic fact that biological species change over time is solid".

How solid is it with everyone? Does everyone accept what we are today evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ansector or do they simply believe and accept species change over time?

The reason I ask is because accepting species change over time is very different than accepting evolution of we evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ancestor.

Since @Polymath257 has already responded, there's one part of your post I'm curious about. You seem to be questioning the notion that "biological species change over time is solid". If so, on what basis? I mean, you do realize that species changing over time, even to the point of producing new species, is a repeatedly observed and documented fact, right? Or is your objection about the level of support, in that as long as there is some segment of the population that denies or doubts something, it can't be referred to as "solid"? If so, I refer you to the existence of flat-earth geocentrists.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Here we go again. Another creationist asking for scientific info, even though we all know that after being provided the info, he'll just make up some weird reason to wave it away.

"It's all just assumption." "That's a biased source." "It has words like 'likely' in it." "It's full of techno-babble."

And round and round it goes....

They continue to regurgitate arguments that were refuted a thousand times over the last few decades. It it like they are completely unaware that this has occurred and that their arguments are all new and decisive. Really pathetic.

 

[tas8831]

Can you show how evolution can make an eye?

Can you show how a deity can?

And while you are at it, show how your deity created a fully formed adult human male from silicates (i.e., 'dust of the ground' - while much dust today is organic, the 'original' dust of the ground would have been primarily silicates, seeing as how there were no living things to die and leave their organics behind).

 

[We Never Know]

You realize there were a few steps between bacteria and apes, right? It wasn't just a 'skip billions of years'.

And yes, the evidence for the divergence of mammals, reptiles, amphibians, primates, etc is also solid.

No. I thought it just skipped billions of years and went straight from bacteria to ape.
Give me a break.

 

[We Never Know]

Since @Polymath257 has already responded, there's one part of your post I'm curious about. You seem to be questioning the notion that "biological species change over time is solid". If so, on what basis? I mean, you do realize that species changing over time, even to the point of producing new species, is a repeatedly observed and documented fact, right? Or is your objection about the level of support, in that as long as there is some segment of the population that denies or doubts something, it can't be referred to as "solid"? If so, I refer you to the existence of flat-earth geocentrists.

Your barking up the wrong tree dude.
I never questioned biological species change over time nor did I question species change and produce new species over time by way of mutations, changing environments and natural selection. It's called evolution.

 

[tas8831]

They continue to regurgitate arguments that were refuted a thousand times over the last few decades. It it like they are completely unaware that this has occurred and that their arguments are all new and decisive. Really pathetic.

The saddest part is - they get it from somewhere. Where do they get it? Well, some might get it from old, abandoned websites that are still accessible, but have not been updated in 10 years. Some get it from guest speakers at their churches and the like (who should know better, but for whom the ends justify the means). Or they may get it from sundry 'professional' or semi-professional YEC sites or books or youtube propaganda - again, whose goal is the ends and the means are secondary. IOW, people that are willing to spread lies for their Faith.
And we run into generally well-meaning folks who lack a scientific background/education and, unfortunately, place their trust in their fellow evangelical-types for whom honesty and integrity take a back seat to gaining converts (and/or making money).

 

[Jose Fly]

They continue to regurgitate arguments that were refuted a thousand times over the last few decades. It it like they are completely unaware that this has occurred and that their arguments are all new and decisive. Really pathetic.

The behavior is ridiculously repetitive as well. Post a challenge for "evolutionists" to provide evidence of something, wave away whatever evidence is provided, then declare victory since no one provided evidence.

Of course the unstated part of that process is "no one provided evidence....to my satisfaction", which is self-fulfilling since they came into the whole thing believing that such evidence cannot ever exist in the first place.

 

[Jose Fly]

Your barking up the wrong tree dude.
I never questioned biological species change over time nor did I question species change and produce new species over time by way of mutations, changing environments and natural selection. It's called evolution.

Then what exactly were you questioning?

 

[Polymath257]

No. I thought it just skipped billions of years and went straight from bacteria to ape.
Give me a break.

OK, so what is the problem? Yes, biologists accept that 3 billion years ago there were only bacteria, the eucaryotic cells developed about 2 billion years ago, that multicellular life developed about 800 million years ago, etc.

Now, does every biologist remember all of this? Certainly not. But neither does every physicist remember ever formula in specialties not their own. That doesn't change the acceptance of them.

So what, exactly, is your question? is there doubt that we have bacteria->eucaryotes->multicellular->vertebrates->jawed fish->amphibians->reptiles->mammals->humans?

Nope. That basic outline is solid. As always, details take more time to fill in, but many of those details have, in fact, been filled in.

 

[tas8831]

While I agree with species evolving from ancestor species, you say "but the basic fact that biological species change over time is solid".

How solid is it with everyone? Does everyone accept what we are today evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ansector or do they simply believe and accept species change over time?

The reason I ask is because accepting species change over time is very different than accepting evolution of we evolved from a bacteria ancestor, skip billions of years then from an ape ancestor.

Indeed. Nearly all legitimate scientists and educated layfolk do.

Creationists probably should, and the more educated ones do to an extent, but they place Scripture-based (i.e., arbitrary) constraints on how far this can go.
I say they should accept this since not doing so causes lots of problems for their ark story, at least if they want to argue that it is reality-based.

 

[tas8831]

You have been deceived into thinking that fossil records of extinct creatures prove evolution. extinction does not equal evolution.

You have been deceived into thinking that evolutionists believe that extinction = evolution.
The fossil record is but one bit of evidence favoring evolution.

What is your background again?

 

[LightofTruth]

Can you show how a deity can?

And while you are at it, show how your deity created a fully formed adult human male from silicates (i.e., 'dust of the ground' - while much dust today is organic, the 'original' dust of the ground would have been primarily silicates, seeing as how there were no living things to die and leave their organics behind).

The apostle Paul wrote about love and what it is. Evolution is the survival of the fittest.

 

[tas8831]

I guess that solves it.

It does, given the level of argument you present. It seems to consist exclusively of mere assertion, so responses that are mere assertion are no worse than your claims.

 

[tas8831]

Can you show how a deity can?

And while you are at it, show how your deity created a fully formed adult human male from silicates (i.e., 'dust of the ground' - while much dust today is organic, the 'original' dust of the ground would have been primarily silicates, seeing as how there were no living things to die and leave their organics behind).

The apostle Paul wrote about love and what it is.

Wow, you totally demolished my entire argument by not even remotely replying to what I wrote. Clever!
So shall I conclude you cannot do what I asked?

Evolution is the survival of the fittest.

I guess.

Do you know what that actually means? I ask because most creationists (and some evolutionists, for that matters) don't.