Evolution...

Originally posted by C Hess
I'm sure you've had this explained to you many times, and that you just don't care about the
finer distinctions, but the theory of evolution is not a theory on how life once began, but a
theory about how all different forms of life we can see around us today could have evolved
from a single form of life.

It is an explanatory model that has yet to be ...[text shortened]... support the theory of evolution, so I guess that
means you too will accept it from now on. 😀

I am sure you must have heard of biologist and professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolution spokesman. Even he admits that evolution does not happen today. So that should end your observation argument. Evolution is not observable science, but speculation.

YouTube

In my opinion, the scientific field of genetics supports the idea of intelligent design.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure you must have heard of biologist and professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolution spokesman. Even he admits that evolution does not happen today. So that should end your observation argument. Evolution is not observable science, but speculation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

In my opinion, the scientific field of genetics supports the idea of intelligent design.

Richard Dawkins admits no such thing.

You are a liar, and only capable of spouting creationist nonsense.

Get Out Of Science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure you must have heard of biologist and professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolution spokesman. Even he admits that evolution does not happen today. So that should end your observation argument. Evolution is not observable science, but speculation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

In my opinion, the scientific field of genetics supports the idea of intelligent design.

A scientific piece of evidence is any repeatable/verifiable observation. When you look at
fossils placed in chronological order, you're making an observation that is verifiable by
anyone else with access to those same fossils. When you map the genome and then read
the result, you're running a repeatable experiment and making a verifiable observation. All
science is observational science.

Dawkins is not saying that evolution is not happening today. He's trying to explain a
common misconception about evolution, namely that many creationists seem to think that
we should be able to see a single fish evolving into a reptile, or a monkey evolving into a
human. Evolution works on the species level, not the individual level. You will never find
two fossils next to each other, one being the parent of the other, where the parent is a
non-human ape and the offspring is a human ape. That kind of drastic, sudden
evolutionary jump has never been observed, and is not expected to either. But on the
species level, we have "missing" links showing how fish evolved into land living reptiles,
land living mammals evolving into whales and yes, different forms of apes preceeding us
(homo sapiens sapiens).

Fortunately, science is not about personal opinions.

Originally posted by googlefudge
If we are talking about evolutionary theory making testable predictions which have been tested and verified this is an excellent example...

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/04/your_inner_fish_book_and_pbs_documentary_on_tiktaalik_and_neil_shubin.html

The Tiktaalik Roseae fossil, that has been depicted with odd-looking legs and even its whole body, reconstructions of which have been prepared and put on display in museums, and which has for years been described as an intermediate fossil in books, in fact CONSISTS SOLELY OF A SKULL. None of the bones added onto the skull is known to belong to this life form at all, but consisted of bones that could have easily belonged to other life forms discovered in the same strata.

All the characteristics of the skull are characteristics belonging to alligators. In appearance, the animal is identical to the alligator sinensis species living in China.

Tiktaalik’s fin was not connected to the main skeleton, so could not have supported its weight on land. The discoverers claim that this could have helped to prop up the body as the fish moved along a water bottom, but evolutionists had similar high hopes for the coelacanth fin. However, when a living coelacanth (Latimeria chalumnae) was discovered in 1938, the fins turned out not to be used for walking but for deft manœuvering when swimming.

Indeed, one can see the fraud here from the account of the artist involved in the reconstruction of Tiktaalik Roseae. In reconstructing the fossil, the artist in question explicitly states that HE TOTALLY INVENTED THE CREATURE THROUGH THE POWER OF HIS IMAGINATION. Furthermore, the same artist stated that he determined the tissues of the animal in question and had no qualms about stating that a great deal of speculation was needed in order to produce a living appearance from a single fossil remain.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Richard Dawkins admits no such thing.

You are a liar, and only capable of spouting creationist nonsense.

Get Out Of Science.

You apparently did not look at the video evidence.

Originally posted by C Hess
A scientific piece of evidence is any repeatable/verifiable observation. When you look at
fossils placed in chronological order, you're making an observation that is verifiable by
anyone else with access to those same fossils. When you map the genome and then read
the result, you're running a repeatable experiment and making a verifiable observation. Al ...[text shortened]... preceeding us
(homo sapiens sapiens).

Fortunately, science is not about personal opinions.

The problem is that one does not know the chronological order of the fossils and can only tell that the animal died. Even if one could put the fossils in chronological order that would not prove evolution.

The only place you can see "missing links" is in textbook drawings. That is why they are called "missing links" because they are missing.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would disagree because the theory of evolution explans nothing about life. Evolution does not explain anything about where life came from, how it got here, or where it is going. It is nothing better than a fairy tale, like a frog turning into a prince by the kiss of a princess. For example, evolution does not explain the metamorphosis of a caterpiller to ...[text shortened]... f genetics gives the best [b]partial scientific explanation for the different forms of life.[/b]

Now you take evolution for evilution. Evilution, the creationist theory, invented by creationists not knowing anything about evolution.

Evilution says that evolution doesn't know anything about life. Clearly wrong. Evolution does, of course. But as long you believe in evilution, then you will never reach any progress whatsoever.

Evilution of yours are nothing more than desinformation. Evolution is science. Evilution is not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure you must have heard of biologist and professor Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolution spokesman. Even he admits that evolution does not happen today. So that should end your observation argument. Evolution is not observable science, but speculation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

In my opinion, the scientific field of genetics supports the idea of intelligent design.

You spell evilution wrong. Evilution is spelled with an "i".

You really have to keep the two apart. Evilution is a part of creationism, invented by creationists. Evolution, on the other hand, is science.

Professor Richard Dawkins knows a lot of evolution. Evilution he doesn't care about.

Do you understand now, mr Ronald Jonah Hinds?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You spell evilution wrong. Evilution is spelled with an "i".

You really have to keep the two apart. Evilution is a part of creationism, invented by creationists. Evolution, on the other hand, is science.

Professor Richard Dawkins knows a lot of evolution. Evilution he doesn't care about.

Do you understand now, mr Ronald Jonah Hinds?

Alzheimer again?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Alzheimer again?

I'm afraid so. You will never get free from it. What does your doctor say?

Originally posted by RJHinds
The problem is that one does not know the chronological order of the fossils...

That's not a very clever objection to what I wrote. Of course we know the chronological
order of fossils. Why would you think we don't?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[a lot of talk about fake evidence]

You do realise that all fakes are discovered and revealed as such by scientists, the same
scientists that accept evolution as the best explanation for the variety of life we see today?
The fact that fakes are exposed is a testament to how well the scientific process works.

Originally posted by RJHinds
...CONSISTS SOLELY OF A SKULL...

Looks like more than a skull to me. 😕

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Tiktaalik Roseae fossil, that has been depicted with odd-looking legs and even its whole body, reconstructions of which have been prepared and put on display in museums, and which has for years been described as an intermediate fossil in books, in fact [b]CONSISTS SOLELY OF A SKULL. None of the bones added onto the skull is known to belong to this li ...[text shortened]... l of speculation was needed in order to produce a living appearance from a single fossil remain.[/b]

You know, now that I've actually read your comment instead of just yawning through it, I
think I'd like to see some valid references to support your claim, otherwise I'll have to
assume you're not being entirely honest.

Originally posted by C Hess
You know, now that I've actually read your comment instead of just yawning through it, I
think I'd like to see some valid references to support your claim, otherwise I'll have to
assume you're not being entirely honest.

We can both assume what we wish.