An Evolution Primer for Creationists

Because common descent is a fact. I've demonstrated that.

No, you've really not demonstrated anything except your utter stupidity. Common descent is an idea, a concept, a theory, and a highly contested one at that. It is anything BUT a fact. You must show proof that families of life emerged from other families, that domains emerged from other domains, that this taxa produced that taxa, that one genus transformed into another unique genus, and nothing in science has ever shown that, in fact, it contradicts that very idea in every way.

I do believe that was my point. That my (and your) personal beliefs are irrelevent in a scientific discussion.

So why do you keep trying to interject your personal beliefs into a science discussion? No proof exists for cross-genus evolution! (i.e.; Common descent)

Oh you're parsing words Dixie. When are you going to address my specific points on macroevolution?

I already have... most specifically, the fact that it's not a fact! It doesn't "prove" anything! You have made ASSUMPTIONS based on incomplete data, and that is NOT science.

ahhh....sure it's possible. And what scientist are saying that ID is not possible? Hell anything is possible. Scientist say that ID is simply not science but you're changing the subject. The subject here is "What is the evidence for macroevolution." I've provided powerful evidence for it and that's just a small part of the evidence available.

What scientist has said ID is not possible? Well, that would be YOU! Dufuss! Repeatedly, you have tried to interject this absurd theory of "common descent" as "proof" that ID is invalid. Your theory is that we evolved from fucking corn, dude! Get real! LMAO!
 
No, you've really not demonstrated anything except your utter stupidity. Common descent is an idea, a concept, a theory, and a highly contested one at that. It is anything BUT a fact. You must show proof that families of life emerged from other families, that domains emerged from other domains, that this taxa produced that taxa, that one genus transformed into another unique genus, and nothing in science has ever shown that, in fact, it contradicts that very idea in every way.

Only in religious circles Dixie. Common descent is viewed as an establised fact in science. It's not contested except by a few cranks at ICR and The Discovery institute and your "Dogcat" argument is a strawman. It misrepresents evolutionary theory.



So why do you keep trying to interject your personal beliefs into a science discussion? No proof exists for cross-genus evolution! (i.e.; Common descent)

Again, you're equating your erroneous dogcat argument with common descent. There's nothing personal in this. You just simply and factually wrong.



I already have... most specifically, the fact that it's not a fact! It doesn't "prove" anything! You have made ASSUMPTIONS based on incomplete data, and that is NOT science.

I've listed independatly verified facts and you've addressed none of them.


What scientist has said ID is not possible? Well, that would be YOU! Dufuss! Repeatedly, you have tried to interject this absurd theory of "common descent" as "proof" that ID is invalid. Your theory is that we evolved from fucking corn, dude! Get real! LMAO!

and again, more strawmen. You're misrepresenting what I've said. No one has said ID is not possible. We've said that it is not science that it is a reliqious belief but so what? You keep changing the subject. Were not talking about ID. Were talking about Macroevolution and the large amount of evidence supporting it.
 
Only in religious circles Dixie. Common descent is viewed as an establised fact in science. It's not contested except by a few cranks at ICR and The Discovery institute and your "Dogcat" argument is a strawman. It misrepresents evolutionary theory.

No, common descent is not viewed as a fact by anyone who can call themselves a scientist. The concept contradicts science. I've made no "Dogcat" argument. I simply stated, for "common descent" to be proven, you have to show how evolution crossed the genus barrier. What is a fact is, we have billions of forms of life and thousands of domains of life. If one genus can't evolve into another genus, how did we acquire so many? You keep going in circles with your logic, one moment you will suggest that "common descent" is the answer, then you bolt from that and claim evolution theory doesn't predict it!

Again, you're equating your erroneous dogcat argument with common descent. There's nothing personal in this. You just simply and factually wrong.

I'm not factually wrong that nothing in science is supportive of the concept that everything living evolved from the same organism. The fact is, science doesn't support that concept. In most cases, classes of life can't even contract the same diseases from one another! There is no evidence that they commonly descended from the same organism! People aren't plants! They function and operate in completely different ways, and have completely different operating systems. Nothing in evolution theory or science suggests they were EVER the same organism!

I've listed independatly verified facts and you've addressed none of them.

You've interjected observations that are facts, but they do not CONCLUDE a damn thing! I have addressed them, you haven't shown the PROOF you claim.

and again, more strawmen. You're misrepresenting what I've said. No one has said ID is not possible. We've said that it is not science that it is a reliqious belief but so what? You keep changing the subject. Were not talking about ID. Were talking about Macroevolution and the large amount of evidence supporting it.

You've repeatedly maintained that ID is not possible, not valid, and has been refuted by science! That's simply not so. It hasn't been proven by science, but neither has Macroevolution. This is why you feel compelled to "offer evidence" supporting it! Proven facts are obvious, they don't require you to present evidence to support them. That should be your first clue that what you're espousing is a theory. Not only is it just a theory, but a highly contested theory of which there is no consensus in the scientific community.

I happen to think ID does have scientific evidence. I've presented a scientific case for it before. The study of animal behavior is science, every animal, indeed, every living organism, only exhibits behaviors explained by a purpose and reason. Humans exhibit a specific behavior of spirituality and worship of something greater than self. It's what separates us from monkeys. Science tells us, there must be a purpose and reason for this animal behavior.

Further scientific evidence for ID... Darwin! In his own words, if some complex organism can be shown to not have emerged from a more simple state, his theory of natural selection fails. The human eye is comprised of a lens, cornea, retina, and iris. These components work in harmony to project an image onto the optic nerve. Without any of these components, the human eye does not function and serves no purpose. Previous assumptions that the human eye is an evolution of photocell type eyespots, are invalid, because an eyespot functions in a different way, without a lens, without a cornea, without an iris or retina. It doesn't need or require those components to do what it does, and would have no way of knowing it needed to "evolve" those elements to become more complex. This is precisely what Darwin articulated!

So there are two scientific observations to support ID. You will immediately refute them, and dismiss them, but this is science! It's the same exact kind of observation you are using to support your theory! Why is it seemingly okay for you to make assumptions based on observations, and for me, it's not? Because you think your science background is better? Because you think you are smarter? I disagree with you on that too! I think you are a fool!
 
And we're all the way back to the human eye argument which was whacked down weeks ago. Jesus.


Because some pinhead know-it-all says something is refuted, doesn't make it so! You have, to date, presented absolutely ZERO evidence to refute what I just posted. NONE! NADDA! And you know what? You can't refute it because it is the truth! Granted, it's a little inconvenient for you to admit this, because it blows your whole idiotic opinion of mankind being the product of evolution from a single organism, completely out of the water. Nevertheless, it is the truth, it is science, and it is fact!
 
Yes, I have refuted it and thoroughly. There is a direct plausible path of evolution for the eye and we even have living specimens of each stage of the eye's evolution found in the lineage of one particular type of sea mollusk. It goes directly from eye spot to eye with crude lens and many stages in between without any need to "know" what it needs to become. Additionally, each living example that we can look at shows you to be an absolute retard for continuing to repeat the lie that if any one element of the eye were missing the entire thing is useless. That's absolutely untrue. We've shown how that's the case as well.

It has been throughly refuted. You refuse to look at the evidence or you looked and pretended you didn't because you know that if you acknowledge it you look like even more of a buffoon than you do now.

If you want to find an example of irreducible complexity the eye is a bad place to start. Oh, and the bacterium's flagellum isn't a great place for you to go either since we debunked that as well. Try something new.
 
Yes, I have refuted it and thoroughly. There is a direct plausible path of evolution for the eye and we even have living specimens of each stage of the eye's evolution found in the lineage of one particular type of sea mollusk. It goes directly from eye spot to eye with crude lens and many stages in between without any need to "know" what it needs to become. Additionally, each living example that we can look at shows you to be an absolute retard for continuing to repeat the lie that if any one element of the eye were missing the entire thing is useless. That's absolutely untrue. We've shown how that's the case as well.

It has been throughly refuted. You refuse to look at the evidence or you looked and pretended you didn't because you know that if you acknowledge it you look like even more of a buffoon than you do now.

If you want to find an example of irreducible complexity the eye is a bad place to start. Oh, and the bacterium's flagellum isn't a great place for you to go either since we debunked that as well. Try something new.

and that's really beside the point, what Dixie isn't grasping, is that the concept of irreducibly complex would only apply at a microevolutionary scale. We're discussing the evidence for Macroevolution not microevolution. He keeps trying to change the subject.
 
117378main_gulfstream_aircraft.jpg


THREAD HIJACK
 
This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution. Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species.
==========
The very first post.....myth #1.....

Do you all realize exactly what that statement means.....?

Waterturd gets himself OWNED in his opening post.....the rest of the thread is fluff....

You can't prove evolution by denying evolution....
 
You know what's fucking awesome? I've never seen an image of a Dept. of Commerce jet, let alone DOC property, for that matter!

What do you people think?
 
This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution. Nobody has ever suggested that one living species changes into a different living species.
==========
The very first post.....myth #1.....

Do you all realize exactly what that statement means.....?

Waterturd gets himself OWNED in his opening post.....the rest of the thread is fluff....

You can't prove evolution by denying evolution....

What the hell are you talking about?
 
More evidence for Macroevolution - Ontology, the science of developmental biology.

Embryology and developmental biology present some of the best evidence for macroevolution. It is a basic fact and correct to state that ontogeny creates phylogeny. This means that when we have knowledge of an organisms development (ontogeny) we can confidently predict certain aspects of the historical pathway (phylogeny) that was involved in the organisms evolution. Thus embryology provides testable confirmations and predictions about macroevolution. For example;

From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw. However, in the marsupial mammalian embryo, the same two structures develop, not into parts of the jaw, but into the anvil and hammer of the mammalian ear. This developmental information, coupled with common descent, indicates that the mammalian middle ear bones were derived and modified from the reptilian jaw bones during evolution. Accordingly, there is a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear.

There are numerous other examples in which an organism's evolutionary history is represented temporarily in its development. Early in development, mammalian embryos temporarily have pharyngeal pouches, which are morphologically indistinguishable from aquatic vertebrate gill pouches. This evolutionary relic reflects the fact that mammalian ancestors were once aquatic gill-breathing vertebrates. The pharyngeal pouches of modern fish embryos eventually become perforated to form gills. Mammalian pharyngeal pouches of course do not develop into gills, but rather give rise to structures that evolved from gills, such as the eustachian tube, middle ear, tonsils, parathyroid, and thymus. The arches between the gills, called branchial arches, were present in jawless fish and some of these branchial arches later evolved into the bones of the jaw, and, eventually, into the bones of the inner ear.

Many species of snakes and legless lizards initially develop limb buds in their embryonic development, only to reabsorb them before hatching. Similarly, modern adult whales, dolphins, and porpoises have no hind legs. Even so, hind legs, complete with various developing leg bones, nerves, and blood vessels, temporarily appear in the cetacean fetus and subsequently degenerate before birth.

Humans are classified by taxonomists as apes; one of the defining derived characters of apes is the lack of an external tail. However, human embryos initially develop tails in development. At between four and five weeks of age, the normal human embryo has 10-12 developing tail vertebrae which extend beyond the anus and legs, accounting for more than 10% of the length of the embryo. The embryonic tail is composed of several complex tissues besides the developing vertebrae, including a secondary neural tube (spinal cord), a notochord, mesenchyme, and tail gut. By the eighth week of gestation, the sixth to twelfth vertebrae have disappeared via cell death, and the fifth and fourth tail vertebrae are still being reduced. Likewise, the associated tail tissues also undergo cell death and regress.

Reptiles and birds lay eggs, and the emerging young use either an "egg-tooth" to cut through a leathery keratinous eggshell (as found in lizards and snakes) or a specialized structure, called a caruncle, to crack their way out of a hard calcerous eggshell (as found in turtles and birds). Mammals evolved from a reptile-like ancestor, and placental mammals (like humans and dogs) have lost the egg-tooth and caruncle (and, yes, the eggshell). However, monotremes, such as the platypus and echidna, are primitive mammals that have both an egg-tooth and a caruncle, even though the monotreme eggshell is thin and leathery. Most strikingly, during marsupial development, an eggshell forms transiently and then is reabsorbed before live birth. Though they have no need to hack through a hard egg-shell, several marsupial newborns (such as baby Brushtail possums, koalas, and bandicoots) retain a vestigial caruncle as a clear indicator of their reptilian, oviparous ancestry.

Not only does ontology provide us with testable confirmations and predictions about macroevolution it is easily falsifiable. Based on our standard phylogenetic tree, we may expect to find gill pouches or egg shells at some point in mammalian embryonic development (and we do). However, we never expect to find nipples, hair, or a middle-ear incus bone at any point in fish, amphibian, or reptilian embryos (and we don't) and any such findings would be in direct contradiction to evolutionary theory.

This is also the answer to Dixie's "DogCat" argument that cross genus evolution has never been observed. This is because evolutionary theory makes no such prediction. Instead, evolutionary theory predicts that ontogeny (developmental biology) creates phylogony (the historical pathway of evolution) in a manner that has a nested hierarchical structure. This prediction, on evolutionary theory, is supported by both observed and experimental data and thus Dixie's "DogCat" argument is a strawman.
 
Last edited:
Mammals evolved from a reptile-like ancestor...

This is unsupported by science. Sorry!

...cross genus evolution has never been observed. This is because evolutionary theory makes no such prediction.

Then, why did you just predict that mammals evolved from reptiles?

I think you have some sort of problem with logic... apparently, your brain doesn't process logic the way a normal human brain does. It's the only way I can explain your completely contradictory statements and beliefs. For mammals to have evolved from reptilian creatures, it would require cross-genus evolution, of which there is no evidence in science.

Evolution is confined to a specific level of taxa, the species level. This is the only level in which we have any evidence for any kind of evolution. Specific species appear to have changed and adapted over time, and we theorize this is largely due to climatic or environmental changes, which required them to adapt to survive. In an interesting side note, there are numerous species in which we have found no evidence of evolution, and the species remains largely unchanged from it's most prehistoric form. So, not ALL species have evolved, from what we can determine.

Common descent is an interesting 'theory' but it defies what science has shown us. The mere fact that certain living things have something in common, doesn't automatically support the concept of common descent. In order for all taxa to have emerged from the same original organism, it would require cross-genus evolution, there is no other possible way to get from point A to point B. Mott admits this, but believes it happened anyway! That is purely a "faith-based" belief, and has no basis in science.
 
This is unsupported by science. Sorry!



Then, why did you just predict that mammals evolved from reptiles?

I think you have some sort of problem with logic... apparently, your brain doesn't process logic the way a normal human brain does. It's the only way I can explain your completely contradictory statements and beliefs. For mammals to have evolved from reptilian creatures, it would require cross-genus evolution, of which there is no evidence in science.

Evolution is confined to a specific level of taxa, the species level. This is the only level in which we have any evidence for any kind of evolution. Specific species appear to have changed and adapted over time, and we theorize this is largely due to climatic or environmental changes, which required them to adapt to survive. In an interesting side note, there are numerous species in which we have found no evidence of evolution, and the species remains largely unchanged from it's most prehistoric form. So, not ALL species have evolved, from what we can determine.

Common descent is an interesting 'theory' but it defies what science has shown us. The mere fact that certain living things have something in common, doesn't automatically support the concept of common descent. In order for all taxa to have emerged from the same original organism, it would require cross-genus evolution, there is no other possible way to get from point A to point B. Mott admits this, but believes it happened anyway! That is purely a "faith-based" belief, and has no basis in science.

You didn't even address the data I presented again, I doubt you even read the whole post. Did you? LOL

Ontogeny creates phylogeny Dixie! LOL

There is no dogcat, get over it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top