Thread: Evolution is a Fact - Not a Theory

Counter this, Mystic7

Originally Posted by Mystic7

It is a short time for a microscopic bacteria to turn into a human being. Ridiculiously improbable. I'd like to see you try and explain it. How long have you been on the earth for? A few years? How old is the earth? Explain why you think you even know this. I already understand I am ignorant but I have enough sense to know it. Unlike Mr evolution expert.

How old is the Earth? Approximately 4.5 billion years, based on radioactive decay of certain elements.

At least you understand your igorance. But you don't seem to understand that you're just too damn stupid. Too fucking stupid. Every post you make is filled with mistakes, fallicies, assumptions, arguments from ignorance, etc. When people point these out you ignore them, post nonsense, or somehow delude yourself that it's everyone else being stupid.

You admit your ignorance but base your entire argument on it, and assume you're right. Either you're just a troll, or you really are that stupid.

If you even started to try and prove this, the first thing you would realize is that DNA isn't constructed exactly the way you like to think it happens to work. Then you would realize monkeys dna is not even compatible for a mutation to human beings. Or whatever ape you want to think was us. Yet that would only be the start of your sad expedition of sobering up.

"The first thing I'd realise is that DNA doesn't work the way I like to think it works".

What?

Firstly I don't "like to think DNA works" like anything, and secondly where is your evidence that DNA doesn't work like science currently suspects. How dare you place yourself higher than some extremely talented minds with no evidence, argument, proof, in any way.

Do you think this information is useful to you? Has it even helped you achieve anything?

Being a scientist has taught me to to be open minded, question everything and try to understand things better. Something you seem to no little about.

Ask yourself. DNA is composed of things you can't even imagine. When you quote scientific deoxyribonucleic acid is composed of a sugar-phosphid. Make sure it's relevant. Because that wasn't. It's not impressive, it's not wise. it's Idiocy.

You are a complete fucking moron. You even said that I had no idea of the structure of DNA. I explain the structure, and you then say it's not relevant (it's a fucking counterpoint you fucking cretin), and then claim on no basis that "It's made up of stuff you can't even imagine". What the hell do you mean, stuff I can't imagine. It's made up of matter arranged in a certain way, and I can certainly fucking imagine - and understand - that.

You are the idiot here, and every post you make demonstrates that.

The point is we did not evolve from apes. As apes and monkeys have different dna that is not compatible. See I didn't have to name thymine or uracil to tell you something solid like that. If you were so knowing about the workings of DNA you would already have looked into this.

Wrong again. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Every species on this planet bar some viruses uses the exact same form of DNA. Genetic engineering has proved that you can take genes from one organism, and paste it into another and it will work. A lot of human insulin is produced from GM bacteria in this manner. Some viruses are RNA based, but once they have hijacked a cell then transcribe their RNA into DNA,

Did you type all that for a messed up reason? Do you think you are justified or something? Where did you get such baseless arrogance? Did your parents teach you it or did you see it on television? Don't you understand it's easy to bring you to this level of petty indifference. Who do you think you are?

You're the one with baseless arrogance, sitting there in your metaphorical ivory tower thinking how smart you are because you can quote false facts about things you have no understanding of, and how you're better than some of the smartest people in the world (and no, I am not putting myself in that category). You're the one that refuses to admit you're ever wrong.

So, who the hell do you think you are?

While your sitting on your throne of plastic wisdom and false evidence. I'll expose your self appointed crown as nothing more than fools gold. And cut off your head with a sword because you were never wearing any clothes in first replying to me. It is a mistake of a little man.

You've not proved any evidence false. You have demonstrated nothing but ignorance, bias, and misinterpretation. You also can not label something as false without a valid argument. And your arguments are invalid since they are not based on facts or correct understanding but from ignorance.

But as I said above, you're just too fucking stupid to understand.

Photolysis, too much hostility will get the thread shut down and you banned. I thought I should tell you. I am not a moderator, but moderators do read this stuff.

Eye for an eye, ad hominem for ad hominem ...

I also attacked the argument as a bonus!

[quote=Mystic7;654095][quote]The evolution theory, stretching from matter to man, is impossible, because of many impassable gulfs. Some of these impassable gulfs are:

1. Between the living and non-living or 'dead' matter;
2. Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms;
3. Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates;
4. Between marine animals and amphibians;
5. Between amphibians and reptiles;
6. Between reptiles and birds;
7. Between reptiles and mammals;
8. Between mammals and the human body;
9. Between soulless simians and the soul of man.

There is not a scrap of evidence that these gulfs have ever been crossed. In the scheme, the material must become living by spontaneous generation; some plants must become invertebrate animals; some invertebrates must become vertebrates; some marine animals must become amphibians; some amphibians must become reptiles; some reptiles must become mammals; some mammals must become humans.

There is no convincing proof that any of these great and incredible advances were ever made. If we estimate the probability of each transmutation at 10%, which is too high, then the probability that all these changes up to man were made is .1 raised to the 8th power, .00000001. Therefore, there is not more than one chance out of 100,000,000 that these 8 changes were made. And if we estimate the probability of each great change at .001, which is doubtless still too high, the probability that man took these 8 great steps of evolution is one out of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, or a million, million, million, million. If we estimate the probability of each change even at 60%, which is far above all reason, the probability of man's evolution through these 8 changes is only 1 out of 60, which marks an improbability close to an impossibility. The highest estimate we can reasonably make, destroys all hope that man or even any other species could have come by evolution. Few persons realize how improbable an event is made which depends upon a number of possibilities or even probabilities, until calculated by the rule of Compound Mathematical Probability.

But, if the evolutionists could prove that 7 out of 8 of the great changes certainly did occur, but failed to prove the 8th, they would lose their case. But they have failed in all. They must prove all to win. There is not the slightest probability that any one of these changes ever occurred. 'Hence, the evolution of man from this long line of alleged ancestors is an absolute impossibility. Q. E. D.

None of spontaneous generation now. Darwin himself said that spontaneous generation in the past was "absolutely inconceivable." No reptiles are becoming mammals, none becoming birds, no apes or monkeys are becoming men. No species is now transmuted into another.

Thanks, although you do seem to be swapping sides

Francis also talk about this in his orgins of life book...

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Eye for an eye, ad hominem for ad hominem ...

I also attacked the argument as a bonus!

Yeah, he definitely started it and dished out insulting labels and did it a lot, but profanity mixed with extra degrading labels like "moron" is usually what calls the police to the house. Mystic is not a good index to use any way. He has already been given a temporary ban.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

The evolution theory, stretching from matter to man, is impossible, because of many impassable gulfs. Some of these impassable gulfs are:

1. Between the living and non-living or 'dead' matter;
2. Between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms;
3. Between the invertebrates and the vertebrates;
4. Between marine animals and amphibians;
5. Between amphibians and reptiles;
6. Between reptiles and birds;
7. Between reptiles and mammals;
8. Between mammals and the human body;
9. Between soulless simians and the soul of man.

There is not a scrap of evidence that these gulfs have ever been crossed.

Regarding 3: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC211.html
Regarding 4 - 7: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
Regarding 8: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html

9 is irrelevant as the subject of 'souls' is outside of science and the theory of evolution. 1 is also irrelevant as it is outside of the theory of evolution. 2 is just plain stupid. The 'vegetable' kingdom never spawned the 'animal' kingdom. Both came from microscopic creatures that took two different paths in evolution.

I've given my evidence. Now show yours, or are you going to bluster about some more.

But, if the evolutionists could prove that 7 out of 8 of the great changes certainly did occur, but failed to prove the 8th, they would lose their case. But they have failed in all. They must prove all to win. There is not the slightest probability that any one of these changes ever occurred. 'Hence, the evolution of man from this long line of alleged ancestors is an absolute impossibility. Q. E. D.

Since I've shown evidence for all 6 relevant stages, I think your argument is far from QED. Besides, failing to prove something is not the same as not proving it. Even if evidence for one of the stages is missing, it might just mean we haven't found it yet, and not that all the piles of evidence for the can be discarded haphazardly.

On the subject of abiogenesis, the theory that life came from non-life, it has no bearing whatsoever on whether evolution is true or not. Even if life was started by a invisible pink flying spaghetti unicorn, the theory of evolution would hold. If you disagree with abiogenesis, that's fine, we're still not sure what happened there, however argue that, not evolution.

I predict that you'll ignore the evidence, so this was probably wasted, but this is more for the benefit of everyone watching.

Perhaps the deepest irony of Mystic7's contributions is that every post provides firmer evidence for evolution as we witness the emergence of a new species: the Fundamentalist New Ager. Entertaining only absurd distortions of opposing viewpoints, meeting logic with derision, and treating metaphor as scientific and historical fact, flakeus literalis exhibits many traits of the Fundamentalist Christian, filling a similar ecological niche, but derives from an entirely different genus.

Here we have it, evolution at work.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

If you accept evolution as your source of existence and foundation. You find you don't really have a choice or a free will. Then the court system would be pretty silly. Everyone could just say, it's because of evolution that I did this or that I have no will of my own. It's just silly.

Incorrect. Evolution is the stages of development and we are capable of making free choices.

You can seek the behaviourist route, if you like. However, the easy rebuttal would simply be "existentialism" which would immediately quell any further conversation. That is, if you are familiar with it.

Furthermore;

Are you saying that Theists can say that they have free will? That is interesting considering they proclaim a supernatural being created everything which invariably shows that they control them and is often used to justify many other arguments (ie. "God intended it that way" "Why?" "He just did").

So, in fact, theism is the detriment to free will; not evolution as it function on a stochastic system. May I suggest you enlighten yourself on that terminology becaues it would be exhaustive to do so myself. Also, I am not confident that you would be very receptive of it (juding by your initial responses).

O'nus there is also a group of people that believe bigfoot is your father. There are some holes in this theory but they are still working on it. Further investigation and inquiry is needed. Or maybe it's an insane theory.

I would say that I have not seen any reason to believe in bigfoot. There may posisbly be one, but I have no reason to believe in it. I consider this the same case for any form of God. (Depending on how you define God, of course).

~

I quoted a bunch of stuff I thought was interesting. No-one has bothered to explain to mutations of the creation of the eye. I do not support everything I quote it's just out of interest. But this is where I am coming from personally. Just to make it clear. Simple yet complex.

1) I do not believe nor deny the existence of any particular supernatural being unless I want to imagine and make one up when it suits me. I have nothing against any religion or atheism or any other form of belief structure.

2) I do not believe nor deny a particular process of evolution unless I want to make one up that benifits.

3) I am certain we did not emerge from the genetics of apes or monkeys.

Now I have a question for believers in the ape theory. Where is the evidence that apes evolved from humans? When can I have proof of it? A simple question but it is not yet shown how this could be possible.

The theory concerning the evolution of man is under increased scrutiny due to the persistence of gaps in the fossil record, the inability to demonstrate "life-or-death" determining advantageous genetic mutations, and the lack of experiments or observations to truly confirm the evidence for speciation. Overall, the evolution of man pervades as the accepted paradigm on the origin of man within the scientific community. This is not because it has been proven scientifically, but because alternative viewpoints bring with them metaphysical implications which go against the modern naturalistic paradigm. Nevertheless, a closer examination of the evidence reveals evolution to be increasingly less scientific and more reliant upon beliefs, not proof.

The differences reported between human and great ape genomes include cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations. Evaluation of the reported findings in all these categories indicates that the CMP-sialic hydroxylase mutation is the only one that has so far been shown to result in a global biochemical and structural difference between humans and great apes. Several of the other known genetic dissimilarities deserve more exploration at the functional level. Among the areas of focus for the future should be genes affecting development, mental maturation, reproductive biology, and other aspects of life history. The approaches taken should include both going from the genome up to the adaptive potential of the organisms and going from novel adaptive regimes down to the relevant repercussions in the genome.

As much as we desire a simple genetic explanation for the human phenomenon, it is much more probable that our evolution occurred in multiple genetic steps, many of which must have left detectable footprints in our genomes. Ultimately, we need to know the exact number of genetic steps, the order in which they occurred, and the temporal, spatial, environmental, and cultural contexts that determined their impact on human evolution.

In other words, this subject has not being investigated properly here and no conclusive results show evidence of ape to human mutation despite any accepted consensus on the subject.

There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Evolutionists often have come forth and admitted their own and their colleagues' extreme degree of bias in this matter. Some have admitted that their approach has not been scientific or objective at all. Many admit to the severe lack of evidence for evolution and that they have accepted their conclusions only because they are unwilling to accept that evolution never occurred

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."
-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

Hmmm, yet somehow the determination of the bulk of biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and geneticists still carries more weight than the grandaddy of Creation Science's attempts to speak scientish...

Isn't life unfair?

Taosaur sounds like your addicted to blind authority or trying to somehow justify yourself without the evidence.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Hmmm, yet somehow the determination of the bulk of biologists, anthropologists, archaeologists and geneticists still carries more weight than the grandaddy of Creation Science's attempts to speak scientish...

Isn't life unfair?

You forgot geologists and paleontologists.

Moonbeam sounds like your addicted to blind authority or trying to somehow justify yourself without the evidence.

Hmm I wonder why professional scientists call it a theory while you call it fact.

Spartiate sounds like your a smart ass with no sense of what's important.

Originally Posted by MontyFlatts

Hmm I wonder why professional scientists call it a theory while you call it fact.

MontyFlatts sounds like your addicted to blind authority or trying to somehow justify yourself without the evidence.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Moonbeam sounds like your addicted to blind authority or trying to somehow justify yourself without the evidence.

Yea, I'm a science addict, I've got to have proof.

Moonbeam, your conclusion is not supported.

Where is your proof? A fanatic junkie doesn't count as proof. It only counts as a dogmatic attitude. Where is my response to what's important? You can't explain it because your not qualified on the subject.

Science (from the Latin scientia, 'knowledge'), in the broadest sense, refers to any systematic knowledge or practice.[1] In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research

Not making smart ass comments of no substance.

Mystic7, were you abused as a child? I'm just trying to get to the root of your superiority complex.

I like that Mystic7's trying to get around the characterization as a fundamentalist by claiming that he doesn't believe in anything he posts.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

No-one has bothered to explain to mutations of the creation of the eye.

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound." (Darwin 1872, 143-144)
He went on to write three pages describing a simple theory of how the eye was formed. This was over one and a quarter centuries ago. You must not have looked hard.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

I am certain we did not emerge from the genetics of apes or monkeys.

And I'm certain we did.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Now I have a question for believers in the ape theory. Where is the evidence that apes evolved from humans? When can I have proof of it? A simple question but it is not yet shown how this could be possible.

I think you meant apes evolved INTO humans. Anyway. That's easy--ever heard of endogenous retroviruses? Basically, when a retrovirus infects an organism, it copies part of its own genetic material over the host's DNA, altering it. Over hundreds of generations of random mutation, the remnants of the retrovirus still remain, with small, unique errors in their transcription. Humans and chimpanzees share several retrovirus remnants, with identical mutations. The chances of the mutations being identical in chimps and humans while arising in separate incidents is virtually impossible, thus we can conclude that humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor--and, by observing the mutations of the retrovirus remnant, we can even estimate the time period. This points at a date about eight million years ago, which correlates well with the fossil record.

Originally Posted by Tsen

which correlates well with the fossil record.

No, Tsen, I think you must be mistaken. I don't think that exists. There's no way Mystic would have overlooked that.