Who knows about the "Taung child" fossil?

[YoursTrue]

Based on what education, work experience, scientific references in the science related to evolution support your claim? All you have mentioned here is a possible college level biology course you did well in. Not much of anything that would be meaningful, and you have not provided any scientific arguments to support your religious based assertions.

Still waiting. . .

From my subsequent discussions and research, I no longer adhere to the concept of Darwinian evolution. I used to, however. But that is not the discussion here. The basic discussion is evolution is not, under the circumstances of findings, a reality.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm thinking you refuse to accept logical and plain reasoning.

I'm thinking that's you.

Remember our discussion about common ancestry, DNA and nested hierarchies?
I do.

It (the theory of living matter said to come about by evolution) just doesn't have a legitimate backup for it.

That's abiogenesis you're talking about here, not evolution.
You know this already.

I'm not talking about creation or anything else.

Except that you are.
You are not talking about evolution when you say things like, "the theory of living matter said to come about by evolution."

Evolution itself, as I look at the answers given, and the theory, just is not working by substantial findings. And by that I mean the gaps biologically are much more than reality would uphold for the theory.

Here you go with the "gaps" claim again.
You have yet to post a single "gap" or "hole" in evolution or the theory of evolution.
You should really stop making this claim unless you can provide any examples.

You can say otherwise, but the facts reveal there is no substance to decide something evolved in terms of species except conjecture using whatever tests pushing in with the theory are used. But whatever the tests do show (such as difference of dna or similarity of structure) does not prove, show, or demonstrate that these objects evolved as in the Darwinian theory. Thanks anyway. You can keep telling me they do, and frankly, it's not there.

Y

Well, multiple groups of independent scientific researchers across the world over the last 150+ years have provided more than enough evidence to confirm that evolution is a fact of life. It is the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence. And that's according to them, not me.
So I'm going to go with the experts on this, because they're the ones who know what they're talking about. Just as you do when it comes to most anything else dealing with science, that is, until it conflicts with your religious beliefs and so you are simply forced to reject them on that basis alone.

I mean, seriously, I couldn't even get you to admit that shared DNA with your ancestors demonstrates common ancestry, just as nested hierarchies demonstrate common ancestry between all creatures on earth.

 

[shunyadragon]

You may use any scientific reference basically to support my assertion.

You have not provided anything to support your religious based assertions. IT is your responsibility to do so.



[/quote] However, when I next come across some such, I'll reference it. [/quote[

None so far.

Same with you. Show how your quotes from scientists support what is deemed as the reality of evolution.

You already stated yu reject the science supporting evolution. A simply google search would produce hundreds of peer reviewed scientific research supporting evolution.

This reference lists many text books on evolution and each textbook lists many peer reviewed scientific articles supporting evolution.

https://www.google.com/search?q=evo...j0i22i30l5.22567j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

[SkepticThinker]

I wonder what it is you think I copied and pasted from heavens forbid a "creationist" source.

I think that, because it is usually the case, from my experiences in these discussions.
Someone did it just yesterday.

I've asked questions from your apparently "non-creationist" sources and I can only imagine when you can't answer, call me uneducated, you tell me to do more research. lol. (And don't know the answer and will parrot answers as IF they are the reason you believe in the theory.

Creationist sources are trash because they don't actually do any research, and they're well-known to be dishonest in their presentation of scientific information. Plus, they're not usually educated in any actual scientific field. Also, they have an agenda they're starting from into which they must fit the data. So they distort the data and do whatever they can to jam it into their unfalsifiable god hypotheses. That's not how science is done.

Scientific and academic sources are much more honest in their presentation of data, because they are held to a much higher standard than creationist sites who are held to no standard at all. Plus, they've done the actual work, presented it to their scientific peers for review and criticism, and are educated in their respective fields.

That's the difference.

 

[shunyadragon]

From my subsequent discussions and research, I no longer adhere to the concept of Darwinian evolution. I used to, however. But that is not the discussion here. The basic discussion is evolution is not, under the circumstances of findings, a reality.

What references can you provide that demonstrate the 'circumstances of findings, a reality.' concerning the history of life on earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

What references can you provide that demonstrate the 'circumstances of findings, a reality.' concerning the history of life on earth.

The reality of the findings. Fossils in particular. Now. For this conversation. Those findings. They do not demonstrate evolution in reality. They demonstrate there were particular organisms that once were alive but died.

 

[shunyadragon]

The reality of the findings. Fossils in particular. Now. For this conversation. Those findings. They do not demonstrate evolution in reality. They demonstrate there were particular organisms that once were alive but died.

What references can you provide that demonstrate the 'circumstances of findings, a reality.' concerning the history of life on earth.

 

[YoursTrue]

What references can you provide that demonstrate the 'circumstances of findings, a reality.' concerning the history of life on earth.

I'm thinking maybe you didn't understand what I said. There IS NO real or circumstantial evidence that life came about by means of evolution. Life itself testifies to that. And fossils do not.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm thinking maybe you didn't understand what I said. There IS NO real or circumstantial evidence that life came about by means of evolution. Life itself testifies to that. And fossils do not.

I understand clearly what you said, and it remains that your overwhelming ignorance of science and your ancient mythological religious agenda is appalling.

 

[YoursTrue]

I understand clearly what you said, and it remains that your overwhelming ignorance of science and your ancient mythological religious agenda is appalling.

Lol still nothing. O well...

 

[shunyadragon]

Lol still nothing. O well...

Yep! You have offered nothing of substance concerning the science of evolution just stonewalling ignorance.

 

[ratiocinator]

There IS NO real or circumstantial evidence that life came about by means of evolution. Life itself testifies to that. And fossils do not.

No matter how often you assert this, it is simply and obviously (if you can be bothered to look) false.

What is the evidence for evolution? - Common-questions
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists
Evidence for evolution (article) | Khan Academy
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Evolution from DNA Sequences
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

 

[tas8831]

Good luck. I have asked several times and gotten nothing in response.

He's probably searching for stuff to plagiarize that he thinks we cannot find.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The reality of the findings. Fossils in particular. Now. For this conversation. Those findings. They do not demonstrate evolution in reality. They demonstrate there were particular organisms that once were alive but died.

I've already addressed this claim and how fossils demonstrate a whole lot more than that. Perhaps try referring to that post.

 

[tas8831]

Hope you will address this, @Wildswanderer

Which YEC website are you getting this from?

That is why it takes time and expertise to examine such things.

Coworker? You mean Mary Nicol? Or Mary Leakey? You mean:

Reader J (2011) Missing Links: In Search of Human Origins.
New York: Oxford University Press.

It would be nice if you could provide better references.

OK, so I know which Mary it is (I have the book) but I don't see anything on p.383 that would indicate that the fossil skeleton we now know as 'Lucy' had this mix of bones you are implying.

Provide the quote that you think does this, and I will check.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Hope you will address this, @Wildswanderer

I didn't get it from any website.
I'll try to elaborate as time allows.

 

[tas8831]

I'm thinking maybe you didn't understand what I said. There IS NO real or circumstantial evidence that life came about by means of evolution. Life itself testifies to that. And fossils do not.

Strawman fallacy.

 

[tas8831]

I didn't get it from any website.
I'll try to elaborate as time allows.

OK. I think I know what the source of your confusion is based on (samples from 2 different sites), but I'll let you gather your data.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yep! You have offered nothing of substance concerning the science of evolution just stonewalling ignorance.

Thanks, you are one of the reasons I realize you not only don't teach, but you really don't know what you are talking about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Strawman fallacy.

No, it's not. It's only what you think, and I'm certain you are among others like that. However, again, despite the so-called small percentage of difference of DNA in humans and gorillas, it is simply, absolutely impossible to prove evolution occurred.