Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The phrase "Evolution is a fact"
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 60 of 217 (489702)
11-29-2008 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Beretta
11-29-2008 7:14 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies
So I must just take your word for it against all the experimental evidence that shows clear limitations. Even after many thousands of generations of bacterial genetic research that produces nothing but variations of bacteria
Well, clearly "many thousands of generations" is still a very small number of generations. This does not count as evidence against evolution simply because the kind of evolution you are looking for would take many more generations then that and shouldn't be expected to be observed in the lab. Would you care to show us any REAL experimental evidence against evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Beretta, posted 11-29-2008 7:14 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 1:01 AM fallacycop has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 75 of 217 (489792)
11-30-2008 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Beretta
11-30-2008 1:01 AM


Re: Fables of evolution
How many human generations are supposed to have occurred to take humans from apes or from australopithicines?
Hundreds of thousands seems to be in the right ball park.
Bacteria have been followed through 40000 generations + by Lenski at Michigan State U. The E.Coli he's studied are still very much E.Coli
Mamals may have a much higher evolutive potential then bacteria, requiring fewer generations in order to aquire significant evolutionary change.
Well the build up of human mutations in the human genome is an indication of which way evolution is actually heading.
All you are giving here is enuendo. where's the evidence?
Are you suggesting that we should say that something we can't see definately did happen until we find evidence against it. Why shouldn't we wait before making statements of so-called 'fact' until we at least have some evidence to support it.
I can't see nuclear reactions in the center of the sun, but I definately believe that it does happen and I will continue to do so until I see some strong REAL evidence against it. Why? Because the evidence for nuclear reactions inside the sun is very strong. In fact, so strong that it is considered incontrovertable. That's why it's called a fact.
That's what we've been trying to tell you for several post now. There a lot of evidence for evolution. In fact, the evidence for evolution is strong enough to be considered incontrovertable. That's why evolution is considered afact. And the best theory put forward to explain evolution so far has been Darwin's theory of evolution.
Now, some people seem unable to accept evolution. That's their problem. The burden is on them to find evidence against evolution.
I'll ask it again.
Would you care to show us any REAL experimental evidence against evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 1:01 AM Beretta has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 77 of 217 (489794)
11-30-2008 2:22 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Beretta
11-30-2008 1:51 AM


Re: Bacterial facts and soulful beliefs
Poodles are mutant genetic weaklings with big problems. They have nothing new added to them in the breeding process -information they already possessed got selected by humans who wanted this or that and with it they got all sorts of inbreeding problems, a build up of mutations, nothing new and original, nothing improved.
Are you saying you believe all the genetic information of all the dog breeds in the whole world was already present originally? That no mutations were required for that process? that nothing new was created? Man, you must be crazy!
Well my faith that there is a God is far superior to man's inventiveness and better supported by the real experimental science.
You see the God I trust has said that He made the world perfect but that the world rejected His authority and decided to go it alone. Since man is so capable of so much evil (you must surely have noticed) this God took away his sustaining power and the world is cursed to decay in time. Now that may sound flaky to you but that's what we see in our mutational loads, everything is running down, not up as evolutionists would have us believe. They are living in a world of fantasy completely at odds with reality and since the Bible said that man would do that and that very few would believe in Him and follow Him and that everything would get more and more rotten and evil until the day came that we'd be forced to get a mark on our right hand or forehead or else have no money.So much history, so many amazing predictions coming true in our time -all in one book that coincides so much better with reality.
Definately off topic. I have to say, though, that I think this is a bunch of bull.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 1:51 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 3:56 AM fallacycop has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 79 of 217 (489797)
11-30-2008 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Beretta
11-30-2008 2:20 AM


Re: Change in allele frequencies
You know, I don't care about popper in this situation. If I can experimentally show that a caterpillar changes into a butterfly but I found a finch in my back yard buried at a higher level than the butterfly that I also found fossilized there; I am not going to deduce that with time butterflies change into finches by random mutation until I have some evidence to prop up that assertion.
So you chose to refuse to accept the layers of fossils as evidence for evolution, but you do not give us any alternate explanation for those layers. All you are giving us is your own incredulity. that's not enough. where's the REAL evidence aginst evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 2:20 AM Beretta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 4:12 AM fallacycop has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 91 of 217 (490585)
12-06-2008 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Beretta
11-30-2008 3:56 AM


Re: Mutations
The original perfect information with all its variability, yes.
No, mutations have played their part -more often to the detriment of the original kind of animal.
You contradicted yourself.
The only beneficial mutations that have ever been shown to exist may be beneficial in certain circumstances -for example wingless beetles on a windy island - but even the beneficial mutations involve a loss of original information.
It's your right to remain ignorant, if that's what you want.
As for crazy - No, i'm a normal person in a normal family, no medication, no strait jacket, fully functional but unconvinced by evolutionary storytelling. I did once believe the sorts of things that you believe but it was before I really considered the other options in any depth, it was in the days when I did not know that there was an option, the days when I swallowed my indoctrination whole.
Crazy was not the best way to describe it, I admit. Confused is probably closer to the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 3:56 AM Beretta has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 92 of 217 (490587)
12-06-2008 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Beretta
11-30-2008 4:12 AM


Re: Incredulity
Well considering that most of the basic body plans that exist appeared in about 3 minutes in the 11th hour geologically speaking (in the Cambrian)I remain unconvinced. Since radiometric dating is the only dating technique that lends any credence to the vast ages required for hypothetical macroevolution to have happened and is far from reliable and since remains of C14 that should be gone from all the 'old' rock layers still persists in measurable quantities (otherwise named "contamination" by those who 'know' that it should not be there) - I find it a somewhat tall tale at best.Besides I still struggle to imagine how my brain could have evolved randomly.
You may have broken the record for cramming the largest number of missconceptions into one paragraph.
I'll adress just the last one and lieve the rest for others (My wife is telling me I need to get a life). Your brain did not evolve randomly. Natural selection is not random.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Beretta, posted 11-30-2008 4:12 AM Beretta has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024