Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I see you also have the vestigial eyes of fish that lives in dark caves, and lost their eye sight.
View attachment 32928

This is not evidence for evolution at all.
Why did the fish lose its eyes, and are only left with some residue?
When did this happen, was it in the first generation, second, or thousandth?
The fish that had eyesight and fell in the cave obviously did not have other sensory organs the blind counterpart has, so how did it survive?
Why did this fish not rather grow its own lantern such as the deep sea ones living today?
No, to use this as evidence as evolution is one huge error.
Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog., a flea into a lice, or how did the dead leave butterfly get its colors?
All that will happen is one explanation to the next, connecting so called, but non existing "Dots", to prove the theory of evolution.

Of course it is evidence for evolution. Now you have done what all creationists eventually do. You have demonstrated that you neither understand the theory that you are arguing against nor do you understand the concept of evidence.

Also what makes you think that fish "fell in the cave"? Why couldn't the ancestors of those fish have entered the cave voluntarily? Looking for a food source that they found and survived on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 32927
Why does that poster of yours have the false evidence of the Horse evolution in it?
1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from the same location.
2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than “ancient horses”.
3. The “ancient horse” (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and East Africa today!
4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different.
5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed (reverse order)
6. Never found in the order presented.
7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side.

Again.
Why use total lies as evidence that Evolution is true, and then weigh it up against the Bible?
I think you totally lost this claim.

Again, you simply have no clue. Now you are making the error of thinking that evolution has goal. Yes, the number of toes in horses has gone up and down. That was all evolution. The modern horse was not a goal of evolution.

Why not try to learn instead of repeating arguments that were refuted over fifty years ago?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Then I see the Cama is also evidence for evolution now.
Funny that the cross between Camel and Lama can only be done by:
Artificial Insemination between Female lama with Male camel and not vice versa.
The offspring does not produce other offspring with each other.
Therefore, to claim that the crossing of a Lama and Camel proves evolution, is as good as telling me crossing a horse and Donkey to get a mule or hinney is evidence of the internal combustion engine proving evolution.
The only difference in the Cama is that the Lama and Camel have both 74 chromosones.
And yet evolution introduced by human interferance dont even change the type of animal to something else.
It is not any evidence of Evolution at all, but evidence that there can be crossing of animals, and even this is very scarce.
Oh, and to cross cows with Bison is crossing a cow and bison, and not evidence of evolution.
It sems as if anything nowadays is used to "Prove Evolution".

 

[SA Huguenot]

Of course it is evidence for evolution. Now you have done what all creationists eventually do. You have demonstrated that you neither understand the theory that you are arguing against nor do you understand the concept of evidence.

Also what makes you think that fish "fell in the cave"? Why couldn't the ancestors of those fish have entered the cave voluntarily? Looking for a food source that they found and survived on.

"Fell, as in I fell in trouble does not mean Fall on my but.
So, let me get this straight.
The fish swam to a cave, got caught, and in darkness were able to survive, and was able to reproduce.
Now, where is the evolution in this.
Fish, turned into a blind fish.
Fish = fish.
Get it?

 

[SA Huguenot]

Again, you simply have no clue. Now you are making the error of thinking that evolution has goal. Yes, the number of toes in horses has gone up and down. That was all evolution. The modern horse was not a goal of evolution.

Why not try to learn instead of repeating arguments that were refuted over fifty years ago?

The horse evidence was a concoction with no chronological sequence, and a collection of bones from 3 continents put together to come up with this story.
Again, only a story.

 

[wellwisher]

If you consider fossil data and evidence, although this can tell us things about particular critters from the past, fossil data can also be misleading, in terms of constructing an accurate and realistic picture of evolution.

The reason is, fossils represent only a tiny subset of all the critters that ever were; one in a hundred million. This tiny subset can create what appears to be a disjointed and discontinuous view of evolution. The theory may fit the data but still not be realistic. For example, in any modern family you may have someone who is tall and/or short, or thin and/or large. If a million years past and we find the fossils of the tall person, we might assume the humans in this village were all tall, since this is the best conclusion with this hard data. To claim all sizes were present is not supported by that one fossil data, even if true.

Here is a home or school experiment, that can show how fossil data can be misleading, in terms of the bigger picture of evolution. To begin pop a large bag of popcorn. We will use this popcorn to construct a picture on the ground. You place the popcorn, piece by piece to draw a picture of something, of a large size. This drawing of a scene will represent all the critters of an integrated ecosystem; one extended family.

Next, we will allow the popcorn drawing to just sit there, for one year to simulate fossil data. Over that year birds will eat, the ants will haul some away, the wind will blow some away, some will be displaced by the rain, and others will rot, etc..

When you return, the once coordinated design now looks all tattered and random. Based on the science protocol of data interpretation, if you never say the original, you will not be able to properly infer the original drawing, since it no longer looks that way. If you took a picture, right after you finished and compare, you may be able to see some parts in tact.

However, fossil data does not have an accurate picture in advance. It is used to draw a picture based on what is left. The best interpretation of the remaining data is not going to look like a rationally organized and constructed drawing. Instead will look more random and disjointed, which is the current thesis for evolution.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's one way to not answer a point.

 

[ratiocinator]

That's one way to not answer a point.

I thought it perfectly characterised your attempt to make the obviously wrong Genesis myth fit with the modern understanding. I really don't know why anybody would bother - Genesis is so obviously a pre-science myth.

 

[paarsurrey]

Fine, but there would have been no night and day. What could "day" mean if there were no sun? Furthermore the scientific model is that the planets, earth included, coalesced from the same cloud of dust and gas that formed the sun, with the sun forming first: Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia

As for water, that would have condensed only much later, after the initially very hot planet (hot from gravitational collapse) cooled enough by radiation into space.

So the sequence would have been:
i) sun
ii) earth
iii) water.

No, there is no way to take Genesis literally and only a fool would try. The thinkers in the early church were well aware of this, even if the average peasant may not have been. It is only at the end of the c.19th and 20th that people silly enough to think it have come to prominence. One of the downsides of the democratisation of information, along with fake news.

"What could "day" mean"

It means period/time dimension in space dimension, which keeps on changing due to expansion of the Universe/s.

Regards
_______________
[32:6]یُدَبِّرُ الۡاَمۡرَ مِنَ السَّمَآءِ اِلَی الۡاَرۡضِ ثُمَّ یَعۡرُجُ اِلَیۡہِ فِیۡ یَوۡمٍ کَانَ مِقۡدَارُہٗۤ اَلۡفَ سَنَۃٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّوۡنَ ﴿۶﴾
He will plan the Divine Ordinance from the heaven unto the earth, then shall it go up to Him in a day the duration of which is a thousand years according to what you reckon.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 32: As-Sajdah
[70:5]تَعۡرُجُ الۡمَلٰٓئِکَۃُ وَ الرُّوۡحُ اِلَیۡہِ فِیۡ یَوۡمٍ کَانَ مِقۡدَارُہٗ خَمۡسِیۡنَ اَلۡفَ سَنَۃٍ ۚ﴿۵﴾
The angels and the Spirit ascend to Him in a day the measure of which is fifty thousand years.
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 70: Al-Ma`arij

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Genesis 1
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was dark and oceanic (cloud planet like Venus, all oceans)
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose (granite)
and life came from the land (likely fresh water, or clay)
and life emerged from the sea
and finally man.

"and finally man"

Created from dirt (thus without ancestors). And then the woman. Created from the man's rib.

 

[PruePhillip]

"and finally man"

Created from dirt (thus without ancestors). And then the woman. Created from the man's rib.

That's the second account. I don't think this is the original one.
Having said that - religious people took offense at the idea that
life can be chemical in nature. And then someone synthesized
urea and "biochemistry" was born.
In Genesis it says that Adam and Eve's family were not the
only people on the earth. So yeah, lots of layering of later stuff
going on here.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see you also have the vestigial eyes of fish that lives in dark caves, and lost their eye sight.
View attachment 32928

This is not evidence for evolution at all.
Why did the fish lose its eyes, and are only left with some residue?

Because when you live in total darkness, you have no use for eyes. And when you have functional body parts that have become useless, they lose their selection pressures to keep them working.

If you can't use your eyes anyway, it's not going to matter if they get mutated into oblivion.
In fact, it might actually turn out to be beneficial. Take moles... Their eyes are covered by a thick layer of skin. An eye-lid that can no longer be opened, if you wish. This is beneficial to them. They don't use it anyway and an eye that can't be opened, also can't get infected due to dirt getting stuck in it - which tends to happen if you live underground.

When did this happen, was it in the first generation, second, or thousandth?

Gradually, somewhere between the moment they got stuck in the cave and today.

The fish that had eyesight and fell in the cave obviously did not have other sensory organs the blind counterpart has, so how did it survive?

Well, it managed somehow. Perhaps the cave gradually closed up as well? Allow less and less light inside it year after year, forcing the fish to adapt to an ever darkening habitat or alike?

Why did this fish not rather grow its own lantern such as the deep sea ones living today?

Obviously it didn't need to, since it manages just fine without it.
And if it did need to and didn't succeed in doing it, it would have gone extinct instead.

No, to use this as evidence as evolution is one huge error.

Because you say so?
The fact is that nothing you said logically results in this conclusion...

Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog

If we would observe stuff like that, evolution would be falsified.

All that will happen is one explanation to the next, connecting so called, but non existing "Dots", to prove the theory of evolution.

I advice you to first inform you on the basics of the evolutionary process before trying to argue against it.

Honestly, when you expect to see cats changing into dogs as evidence for evolution, I can only conclude that you have no clue what you are talking about.

This is akin to trying to argue against gravity because "hammers don't fall down in the space station".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Fell, as in I fell in trouble does not mean Fall on my but.
So, let me get this straight.
The fish swam to a cave, got caught, and in darkness were able to survive, and was able to reproduce.
Now, where is the evolution in this.
Fish, turned into a blind fish.
Fish = fish.
Get it?

We get it. It seems that the one who isn't getting it, is you.

 

[exchemist]

I see you also have the vestigial eyes of fish that lives in dark caves, and lost their eye sight.
View attachment 32928

This is not evidence for evolution at all.
Why did the fish lose its eyes, and are only left with some residue?
When did this happen, was it in the first generation, second, or thousandth?
The fish that had eyesight and fell in the cave obviously did not have other sensory organs the blind counterpart has, so how did it survive?
Why did this fish not rather grow its own lantern such as the deep sea ones living today?
No, to use this as evidence as evolution is one huge error.
Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog., a flea into a lice, or how did the dead leave butterfly get its colors?
All that will happen is one explanation to the next, connecting so called, but non existing "Dots", to prove the theory of evolution.

Another person determined to remain as ignorant as possible about science:-

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's the second account. I don't think this is the original one.
Having said that - religious people took offense at the idea that
life can be chemical in nature. And then someone synthesized
urea and "biochemistry" was born.
In Genesis it says that Adam and Eve's family were not the
only people on the earth. So yeah, lots of layering of later stuff
going on here.

So you are fine saying that your god kickstarted the big bang and then set back and watch everything unfold - which simply followed the laws of physics as they apply within the universe?

 

[exchemist]

That's the second account. I don't think this is the original one.
Having said that - religious people took offense at the idea that
life can be chemical in nature. And then someone synthesized
urea and "biochemistry" was born.
In Genesis it says that Adam and Eve's family were not the
only people on the earth. So yeah, lots of layering of later stuff
going on here.

Thanks for the snippet about urea. I did not know about Wöhler's 1828 synthesis from ammonium cyanate (an unstable material he prepared from a variety of ingredients).

But it seems the idea of it dispelling the notion of "vital force" is a rather widespread myth. Ammonium cyanate was itself derived from materials that were themselves produced from organic starting materials, so it could not disprove vitalism. But vitalism was already on the slide and, it seems, was given the knock-out punch in 1845, by Kolbe's synthesis of acetic acid from carbon disulphide. More here: Wöhler synthesis - Wikipedia

The term biochemistry came into use around the turn of the c.19th.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I see you also have the vestigial eyes of fish that lives in dark caves, and lost their eye sight.
View attachment 32928

This is not evidence for evolution at all.
Why did the fish lose its eyes, and are only left with some residue?
When did this happen, was it in the first generation, second, or thousandth?
The fish that had eyesight and fell in the cave obviously did not have other sensory organs the blind counterpart has, so how did it survive?
Why did this fish not rather grow its own lantern such as the deep sea ones living today?
No, to use this as evidence as evolution is one huge error.
Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog., a flea into a lice, or how did the dead leave butterfly get its colors?
All that will happen is one explanation to the next, connecting so called, but non existing "Dots", to prove the theory of evolution.

What might be called the Philosopher's Fallacy: when a failure of imagination is mistaken for an insight into reality.

 

[exchemist]

What might be called the Philosopher's Fallacy: when a failure of imagination is mistaken for an insight into reality.

Not sure about imagination: it seems to be simply a (carefully maintained?) failure to read.

 

[SA Huguenot]

What might be called the Philosopher's Fallacy: when a failure of imagination is mistaken for an insight into reality.

Youve given me the best description of people believing in Evolution ever!

 

[SA Huguenot]

Not sure about imagination: it seems to be simply a (carefully maintained?) failure to read.

That too.
I find that Evolutionists have huge difficuilty in that area.
Especially when they tell me what they thought they read from the Bible.