The Big Bang Theory......

[MindBat]

It's no longer a theory ...





I banged them.

[squealpiggy]

Let me just open this can of whoop-ass...

What concrete evidence exists to support the theory of evolution {not in your mind} but in reality, which is totally different.

Morphology, distribution, genetic/molecular and fossil evidence. Ring species, evidence from animal husbandry, laboratory observations of evolution in process. Need more?

So, now we're trying to validate the ToE with gene mutations, while disregarding actual fossils that prove otherwise?

The fossils support evolution. They're just not the primary evidence. The theory was formulated by Darwin and Wallace separately with a dearth of fossils. Darwin correctly predicted that there would be fossils found later that would support his theory, there were and they did.

If you claim that the fossil evidence does not support evolution again I shall dismiss you as a liar, and everyone reading this will agree with me. I have made it quite clear to you by now.

This seems to be a pattern equivalent to creationists, when one theory doesn't work introduce another theory to further detract\sidetrack and confuse.

If you are confused then that is your problem. I believe my explanation to be concise and clear.

Not at all, gene's replicate based on genetic code sequences that dictate how it replicates and into what, if there were mutations, excuse me "Beneficial mistakes" in the genes, it would have to be on an unimaginably massive scale to even begin to produce a totally different evolved species.

No it wouldn't. What you are proposing is a massive morphological change or "hopeful monster" which is not something expected under the ToE. What is expected is relatively minor changes building upon other relatively minor changes to produce eventually major change over hundreds or thousands of generations.

Genes make copies of themselves. Ultimately that's all evolution is: Imperfect copies of parent genes. I suggest reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins for an in depth discussion of the subject that is written for laymen such as yourself. Before that I recommend reading a book about the basics of evolution so you can understand it properly.

I completely agree, the transition from even a remotely similar creature having both the characteristics of a devolving **** erectus and an evolving **** sapien is missing ... i.e. the missing link.

"The Missing Link" is an utterly stupid term. Because every generation is transitional between itself and the next any "missing link" found would simply produce demands for two more "missing links" to connect the original two organisms to the new one that links them. Also "devolving" is meaningless. If humans were to evolve characteristics that made us more reminiscent of our primate ancestors again this would not be "devolving", this would simply be evolution in response to differing selection pressures.

I'll requote: Scientists who dated and analyzed the specimens — a 1.44-million-year-old **** habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old **** erectus found in 2000 — said their findings challenged the conventional view that these species evolved one after the other. Instead, they apparently lived side by side in eastern Africa for almost half a million years.

So what?

This find exposes an inconsistency, because habilis\erectus were according to ToE thought to exist in sequence, not in the same time span. And if they coexisted, which the fossils would suggest and analysis supports, then discovering the missing link becomes that much more important, because the sequential line is now severed.

And in light of new information the ordering has changed and it seems likely that these two lineages were evolutionary cousins rather than evolutionary ancestors of one another. And they share a common ancestor with each other, with us, and with chimpanzees and gorillas.

Changing the model to reflect new information is a strength of science. There's no scientific "canon". Scientists seek to improve our understanding of the world, not to make infallible proclamations.

I see where you're going with this, still what you describe would have to occur on a massive scale in order to produce totally aboriginal cells.

WTF?

And to be honest, self-composed constructs cannot be used to support what you believe -- even though this **** you're making up may make sense to you doesn't mean in any way, that its reality -- you should add that disclaimer to your self-formulated constructs.

This paragraph makes no sense.

1. Never stated that in any way, shape or form -- My statement is that Archeological discoveries {fossils} are proving destructive to the ToE.

No they aren't.

2. Again, never stated, along with your self-indulged constructs, you seem to misread on-demand, even when there is little to no evidence to support your rantings.

I went to some length to explain the concepts behind evolution in their most basic terms. If you want to characterise this as "ranting" then I suggest a lie down.

3. No, again you are incorrect, fossils showing the transitional hominids would go a long way to supporting the ToE, without that evidence, without a shred of proof ... we remain in this current stagnant state. THEORY ONLY!!!

You don't know what the word "theory" means either. Good grief, no wonder America is running out of scientists.

You still haven't produced a shred of evidence stating unequivocally that the ToE is a fact.

Actually I have. You've just responded to it with "but Archeologists (sic) have found {fossils} that disprove (sic) ecolution {theory}". It's not my fault if you are unable or unwilling to understand basic science.

4. You're imagination is running wild still, no where did I make that statement. It would seem that you are running out of the necessary arguments needed to sustain your belief. And have as a result, turned to manufacturing words and phrases that aren't even written.

You said that biologists are unable to produce evidence about evolution without access to fossils (which you erroneously claim do not exist). They do not access fossils. They analyse and compare genes.

I would guess, this is a side-effect of believing in something without a shred of evidence.
5. Evolutionists & Creationists, as I stated, both believe in constructs that CANNOT and have not to date been proven. When challenged, theories start flying in all directions, but at the root .... Still nothing is proven.

Creationism is religion inspired alchemy. Evolution is science.

Darwin didn't need factual data to formulate his theory, because it is not factual nor is it required for a Theoretical Hypothesis.

You evidently do not know what either of these words mean.

This theory remains unsupported and as time advances, and more evidence is discovered, it will eventually transition to unfounded -- So, your argument fails miserably here.

The theory is supported by multiple streams of evidence from numerous fields of scientific inquiry. You are either lying or stupid. Pick one.

And it is your suggestion that fossils should be discounted, in spite of the revelations, and we should in its place, accept conjured up theories that are supported by other theories.

I didn't say that fossils should be discounted. I'm saying they could be and the T0E would not suffer one jot from their absence! Fossils support evolution, they're just not the only source of evidence for evolution!

Here is the resounding, unanswered challenge to evolutionists:

Where is your proof?
Where is your evidence?
Where is your missing link?
No more theories constructed to support other theories -- Where is your proof?

Proof is used in mathematics and distilling. The evidence has been explained above. The "missing link" is an absurdity as already explained.

Someone point me to the conclusive documentation that supports in its entirety the Theory of Evolution, because to date I cannot find it.

I put it on a plate for you, liar!

I can admit when I'm wrong ..... all I need is the above.

You evidently cannot admit when you are wrong because you are wrong and have not yet admitted it.

Both You & Squeal are delusional ... His whole argument was nullified by this statement:
"Importantly, also, all of these quotes are talking more about specific fossils than the actual fact that “people evolved from ape-like ancestors.”"

Anyone making that statement is just as batty as the talking snake believers.

So, he ain't whippin jack-****!!!

That statement was taken verbatim from the source you linked to you dolt. Read the articles you link to, you absolute embarrassment!

[squealpiggy]

"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19.

"In fact,the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

."Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

This is called quote-mining. It's a form of lying... taking statements out of context to make it look as though they are claiming something which they are not. I could find each quote in context but frankly I can't be bothered because I've already made a stronger case for evolution than you have against it. I don't need to waste my time.

[squealpiggy]

"But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. When you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt. Either they don't exist at all, or they are so rare that endless argument goes on about whether a particular fossil is, or isn't, or might be, transitional between this group or that." [emphasis in original] Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven Ct,:Ticknor and Fields, 1992) p. 19.

"In fact,the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." Steven M. Stanley, The New Evolutionary Timetable (New York: Basic Books, 1981) p. 95

"And let us dispose of a common misconception. The complete transmutation of even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field." Dean H. Kenyon (Professor of Biology, San Francisco State University), affidavit presented to the U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-1513, Brief of Appellants, prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-16.

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them." David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," Evolution, Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

."Thus so far as concerns the major groups of animals, the creationists seem to have the better of the argument. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Each is a special animal complex related, more or less closely, to all the rest, and appearing, therefore, as a special and distinct creation." Austin H. Clark, "Animal Evolution," Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1928, p. 539.

"When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory [of evolution]." Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, Vol. 2, editor Francis Darwin (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1898), p. 210

". . . the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," Nature, Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

This is called quote-mining. It's a form of lying... taking statements out of context to make it look as though they are claiming something which they are not. I could find each quote in context but frankly I can't be bothered because I've already made a stronger case for evolution than you have against it. I don't need to waste my time.

[D-MiZe]

The only time fossils will discredit evolution is if a modern day rabbit is amongst dinosaur fossils. Arra, I can just sense you're a creationist and well...no more needn't be said.

I don't know how you can refute what Piggeh is saying. A reply using quotes is as good as waving a white flag.

[deliveryman]

The only time fossils will discredit evolution is if a modern day rabbit is amongst dinosaur fossils. Arra, I can just sense you're a creationist and well...no more needn't be said.

I don't know how you can refute what Piggeh is saying. A reply using quotes is as good as waving a white flag.

Especially when it contains a quote from 1928 and one from Darwin himself.

Talk about quote mining.

[arraamis]

The next time one of you guys make a mockery of Religious-Belief Systems and or its components ..... I'm going to point you to this thread. You have provided NO evidence\proof or any kind to support your claims .... NOTHING!!!!

Even, when I make a statement to admit being wrong\incorrect, still no evidence\proof from the Evolutionists was submitted, evolutionists are just as bad as those believing that snakes at one time could communicate with humans.

*******
Here is a list of 100 Scientists who collectively put out a statement on the ToE.

A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

Public TV programs, educational policy statements, and science textbooks have asserted that Darwin’s theory of evolution fully explains the complexity of living things. The public has been assured, most recently by spokespersons for PBS’s Evolution series, that “all known scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution” as does “virtually every reputable scientist in the world.” The following scientists dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. There is scientific dissent to Darwinism. It deserves to be heard. www.discovery.org

http://www.4shared.com/office/5khtbs...entistsAd.html

All this BS Squeal and others are stating is total UNSUPPORTED nonsense. I will waste no more time with knucleheads who cannot even state why they believe something or point me to the documentation that conclusively proves the ToE is a factual construct.

My Challenge stands!!!!

Someone point me to the conclusive documentation that supports in its entirety the Theory of Evolution, because to date I cannot find it.

No more BS theories and no more BS speculation, especially from unqualified individuals {Squeal} who seem to manufacture **** without a shred of evidence or proof ...... Just point me to the proof\evidence that totally supports the ToE unquestionably.

[D-MiZe]

No more BS theories and no more BS speculation, especially from unqualified individuals {Squeal} who seem to manufacture **** without a shred of evidence or proof ...... Just point me to the proof\evidence that totally supports the ToE unquestionably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution


You do realise that a significant evolutionary change takes more than a few hundred years?

[arraamis]

The only time fossils will discredit evolution is if a modern day rabbit is amongst dinosaur fossils. Arra, I can just sense you're a creationist and well...no more needn't be said.

I don't know how you can refute what Piggeh is saying. A reply using quotes is as good as waving a white flag.

A reply with quotes squashes the nonsense, book after book after book -- I've provided more evidence against in that one post then you guys have presented for throughout this thread.

-Someone provide quotes from books ..... Evolutionists: BS quote mining!!!!
-Someone provides documented fossil finding with links .... Evolutionists: BS fossils don't count!!!
-Someone provides links to research papers ... Evolutionists: BS, they lie!!!

Versus what Evolutionists have provided .... NOthing!!!

And some you guys mock Christians for their beliefs ?!?!?!?!? This is insanely laughable.

[arraamis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution


You do realise that a significant evolutionary change takes more than a few hundred years?

Correct ....
That still doesn't discount what some of you guys are stating "That the Theory of Evolution is factual and undeniable"

My request stands ... point me to the undeniable evidence\proof supporting unquestionably the Theory of Evolution and I will STFU ... Period!!!!