Ringer

For evolution of course the talkorigins archives:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html Evolution evidence:http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#evidence Common Creationist claims and why they're wrong: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/outline.html#evidence http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html Project Steve for the claim there are some scientists who don't believe in evolution: http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve Common descent evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent General evidence: http://www.teachthemscience.org/evidence http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46 http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

Oh. It appears I was mistaken, thank you for pointing that out. I was always under the impression that macro-evolution was a term coined by anti-evolutionist to muddy the waters of the evolution debate because I had never encounter the word otherwise, or I've just forgot when it's been used. My mistake.

Macro-evolution isn't really a scientific term so it's not defined scientifically. It's just what happens given enough time. The problem is that when people use macro-evolution they will, usually, change the definition to suite what they want it to be to keep their argument valid. Your analogy is largely flawed. Our writing system has rules and preset words. If something follows the rules but is not one of the accepted words it will be what you say is noise, and if it doesn't follow the rules it will be noise. Now if there is a mutation there will be no noise, every combination of 3 nucleotides will have an amino-acid pair, barring stop codons. So when there is a mutation in a coding region there is a resulting nucleotide sequence, not useless noise. (^this is very oversimplified and I know it) This must refer to creationist websites because there is no 'kinds' in biological literature Speciation isn't the only kind of evolution or else it wouldn't need its own word, it is one result of evolution. Again, no that is a mutation. A mutation doesn't necessarily cause evolution, though some do. Again, no. This is abiogenesis, evolution requires life to begin so it cannot be used to explain the origin of life. I've given you examples of this and you have ignored them. I've said it before, evolution is change in allele frequency over time. That is the definition, and the variation is the short term consequence. It doesn't have to be observed to be known to be true, though as I have said before we have seen large changes and even seen yeast evolve proto-multicellular behavior. I gave the example that no one has observed an atom, or the smaller parts there-in, but you accept them to be real. There's a contradiction that you still have not got around. Here's a slug that used HGT to start being able to photosynthesize, so it's not only bacteria that utilize it. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/01/green-sea-slug/ Here's a story of the yeast; http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-suggests-speedy-start-for-multicellular-life-1.9810

In no way does creationism even seem right under critical scrutiny. The point is that a literal reading in a single specific way leads to many contradictions that can only be resolved by not reading it literally. Those videos don't show anything about evolution being right or wrong. They have no evidence other than people talking, you can't over throw more than a century of scientific evidence with an everyday conversation. Evidence is needed.

All you did was give a post hoc story about how it may not be evolution so it can fit a notion that evolution isn't real. That's not science remember. It's not my responsibility to explain the paper to you unless you have specific parts you need clarified. It's pretty up front throughout the whole thing.

That's the problem, we have given you vast amounts of information on how these things work and you've ignored it. It seems like you either are purposefully being dishonest about wanting to look at the evidence or you don't understand what you are reading due and are embarrassed to admit it. I hope it's the second one, because if it's the first you are wasting all of our time. If you fall into the first category I would prefer you admit it so I can move on. If you fall into the second category please say what you don't understand, if you are truly willing to learn we are more than happy to help.

First, talk origins cite all their sources, as did all the links I posted, so it's not hearsay. Second, I have posted actual literature, but since you haven't even went through my past links you wouldn't know that I guess. But here's one about hybrid speciation: http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1002274?__utma=261502610.311680613.1337299064.1337299064.1337459494.2&__utmb=261502610.14.10.1337459494&__utmc=261502610&__utmx=-&__utmz=261502610.1337299064.1.1.utmcsr=bacteriality.com|utmccn=(referral)|utmcmd=referral|utmcct=/2008/08/26/dino/&__utmv=-&__utmk=260281870 Yeah, that's not an atom. Try again? It is relevant because it shows that you don't know what is meant by observed and by your definitions we can't consider a large body of knowledge to be scientific, which would be ridiculous.

Yeah, that's what happened with evolution. I will give you ACTUAL LITERATURE as soon as you read some of the links I posted. We have seen evolution happen, read the links I posted on the other thread. I've given you citations that you ignore. You can't say you're right unless you have evidence, which you have failed to provide in all aspects. You keep using that word, faith . . . I do not think it means what you think it means. Again I ask, since we can't directly observe atoms do they not exist?

sammy, what links that I posted in the other thread did you read?

I don't see an example as an anecdote being used as evidence It's not about her lying or not, it's about the methodology being flawed. Science doesn't take someone's word no matter how honest they are. An observation study is completely different from what we are talking about. Again I ask why wouldn't my way of doing the journal be valid, because only recording positive results is still cherry-picking. No, because you said before you had stomach pain and an image of him. That doesn't mean it was communicated. You can't logically assume communication just because it was correlated and you can't empirically conclude it can be communicated when you only have positive results recorded. Yeah, neither are you. The court of science has so far decided psi is bunk. I'm pretty sure I already said it's not opinion of what gets accepted, it's a practice. He is more familiar with the practice than you are. I said opinion because you said that, in your opinion, science should accept anecdotes. You brought opinions into it.

I say that you don't know what is meant when scientists say observable. They are scientifically observable, just not by the arbitrary definition you are using. You don't understand what I meant when I said it has nothing to do with how factual evolution is. No matter how many questions you throw out at an individual that they can't answer it doesn't mean A.) that the answer is unknown or B.) if the answer is unknown it negates all the other evidence available. Please share this video where Dawkins says that evolution is not observable today.

What? In what way can you assume that I would be immoral if I had his wealth? I don't see the need for a personal insult. I was just stating that he would wouldn't make near as much money without most of the people in the world. Seeing that I don't know him personally I didn't really feel the need to comment on his moral grounds of people being killed, so I stuck with what was obvious.

So you say atoms are observable without evidence of them being observable? It has been watched and commented on, not that it has anything to do with how factual evolution is. [edit] spelling correction [/edit]

Cite your sources, because so far as I am aware an atom has never been 'imaged' (I assume that means an image made of them) other that drawing based on theories. So you want to preach?

So do you agree that you have yet to read any of the links I have given and are not here for a reasonable debate? Because so far as I can tell your 'reasonable conversation' is going like this: "Evolution isn't real! *insert generic anti-evolution 'argument'*" "Evolution is real, and here is some evidence against your argument." "Evolution isn't real! *insert generic anti-evolution 'argument*" ad infinitum In what why are atoms observable? I don't see why anyone would ask you questions about Creation when I already did before and you flat out said it wasn't scientific and has no explanatory power.

Then answer this question, do you believe in atoms? As to your request for literature, I don't see the point in giving you another link when it is very obvious that you haven't even attempted to read the ones I already gave. HGT will give novel functions to a different organism because it may interact differently with the proteins already being produced by the genome. You can also easily get novel functions and information when viral DNA is places in our genome and a frame shift mutation occurs, or any frame shift mutation for that matter.

You can't start with a presupposition that isn't factual. Here are some examples of observed macro-evolution: http://evolutionlist...d-evidence.html Not to mention one of my previous posts had a link to evidence of macro-evolution. I will say again, read the links given. If you refuse to do that you are soapboxing which is against the forums rules. 9 days is a few generations for most bacteria. Some of which can have a generation time of about 12 minutes. What genes could have been swapped? Nylon is man made, meaning nothing should have the ability to digest it. Not to mention no other bacteria would be in the sample because, you know, scientists control the conditions of their experiments. Your statement was that evolution doesn't happen, we showed it does. Now it has to be new information, which I gave examples of. Now you are just ignoring what was said previously. It doesn't matter what you assume, if your assumptions have no evidence to back them up they are worth less than nothing. You also can't say it was a loss of information if you don't have the genetic information to back it up, so please give a source. You said you were here for a reasonable discussion, but so far you are being somewhat unreasonable. We are giving you links to plenty of evidence and you haven't even begun to read them. Is it not reasonable for you to take some time and read those sources that we took the time to find for you? They don't fail as scientific evidence, it may be difficult to see how they are used if you are not familiar with the process so I will explain. If evolution doesn't happen all the life we see today as well as fossils lived at the same time. If that is the case we should see modern animals fossilized along side extinct animals OR at least find evidence that there was a coexistance within the ecosystem where they would have lived. The problem is that is not what we find. The fossils I think I already talked about so let's look at the ecosystem problem. As an example look predators of Africa. Predation is a fairly unstable state. Most predators are very territorial because they depend on having other animals as their food source. Now if you look at the carnivorous dinosaurs and modern day predators if they would have existed at the same time most modern predators probably wouldn't have survived. Why? Because the amount of food necessary to feed those dinosaurs would be vary large compared to modern equivalents. The dinos probably would not only eat the modern predators food source, but, depending on which dino, probably wouldn't be all that shy about eating the predators as well. You're right that's not scientific. You would make that hypothesis then test it. If you can't constantly observe your friend, because that's kinda creepy, you make a lawn just like his and have the same conditions his lawn is under. You then mow it every day at 3pm and see if your lawn is in the same condition as his. Since it wouldn't be you know you were wrong, so you make a different hypothesis, either adding to your original idea or dropping that and starting over, and test that one. You keep testing and testing and testing and testing until you get it. After you get it then other people look at your idea and say, "I wonder where he messed up." So now they do the same thing. If they get your results you are on a bit better ground, if not you may still be wrong. So then more people test. . . I think you get the idea. The testing doesn't stop, that's why science is always progressing as well as why we are so confident in the things that have held up to so many tests. Then link the overviews. The term evolution is not deceptive, it means change in allele frequency over time. Terms such as that are exact, no room for interpretation. Science attempts to be as ubiquitous as possible so there are no misunderstandings. Macro-evolution is a meaningless term for the most part because it is not specific enough. If it means a species going to another species we have a word for that, speciation. Look for exactly what you want, not ambiguous terms. Search for novel genetic mutation or something similar. Look for speciation if you want speciation. I gave you evidence of macro-evolution, read the links and get back to me.

^ Name not a name > Please finish an entire though without side comments. You are making it very difficult to read what you are saying. You're missing a lot of things. One is that we have actively observed many evolutionary changes. You are the one saying that just because it isn't directly observed it can't be verified, which evolution has been. Your back story case doesn't hold because once we tell this story we must be able to show that it more than likely happened using molecular, morphological, etc. evidence. Nothing you are saying is what people do when studying evolution, it's just a straw-man made by people who don't understand evolutionary theory. To add to that you are just trying to push a ridiculous burden of proof when you say there are no transitional fossils, I show them to you, and you say since they weren't observed while they were alive it can't be shown to be transitional. If that is the case every creation myth falls just as short as well as all the other failings they have. I gave you a link to predictions made and verified. Just because something happened in the past doesn't mean it is outside the realm of science. Where could you possibly have gotten this idea? I could use your same logic and say that since we couldn't observe light before we were around and it was recorded we can safely assume that light didn't exist until recorded history. Also the fact, that has been stated repeatedly, we have observed these events take place. Read the links I gave and then argue your points because right now it just looks like you don't understand evolutionary processes.

Relevant: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120517132055.htm

Bill Gates would have a lot less money if a large % of the world's population was to be eliminated.

It won't have any implication other than something with 14C got in the bone. I guess you didn't read the link I gave, it states specifically that the bones themselves can't be dated with isotopes, only the sediments they are found in. Yes, and real science = evidence + explanatory power. For evolution there is a huge amount of both. Real science =/= I, personally, don't have enough information, therefore the theory is wrong. By competition I mean limited resources being contested for by different organisms. Selection is another example of a different, but related, idea. Please read this: http://www.talkorigi...g/faqs/comdesc/ So you agree that organisms with better traits survive and reproduce better than others? If so: 1.) your statement of n-d-t being bankrupt of evidence is void because you agree there is evidence for part of it 2.) you agree that evolution happens because the traits 'selected' for become more prominent. Yes, and I gave you a few examples. If you want a human example of a positive information being added look up the lactase persistence allele. This is the reason, if it's genetic, some people can and some people cannot digest lactose after infancy. If it doesn't have to be human look up the horizontal gene transfer and polyploidy, as I have said before. I wasn't. Being in the Bible Belt I didn't get taught a real class in evolution until I was in college (my High School Bio teacher didn't believe in evolution). After I had a real class with a professors that knew what they were talking about it made so much more sense, as well as being shown real evidence.<br style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> The problem is every single fossil, as well as extant species, are transitional. There is no secret that most remains are destroyed before fossilization, after all dinosaurs were the major life form for a very long time and their remains are fairly difficult to find. For evolution to hold water all that would be needed would be a single transitional fossil because it would show evidence that there was transition. Luckily we have much more than just one: http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils http://www.talkorigi...c/CC/CC200.html <br style="background-color: rgb(248, 250, 252); "> Punctuated equilibrium does not happen all at once. It happens suddenly in geological time. This time frame may be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years. This is many many generations. It also doesn't replace the gradualistic theories, only adds that it is not the only, and may not be the main, way evolution can happen. And almost all scientists look at the arguments against evolution and ask, "why no evidence for your stance?" See the transitional fossils in my links above, there are plenty. He probably didn't put them in there because he wasn't making a book defending evolution but teaching it. Since it was probably a Biology text there would be no reason to include transitional fossils other than, perhaps, a small note that they exist. Other than that it doesn't add anything important if the book is looking to teach someone how evolution may work. Are you now saying you believe in evolution? That's what your stance on gradualism seems to imply. More to the point, punctuated equilibrium does happen, but it relies, at least in my understanding, to heavily on morphological features. Ring species are a perfect example of morphologically similar, but genetically distinct enough at the ends to be distinct species. This isn't a huge problem and doesn't mean punctuated equilibrium doesn't happen, but graduallism happens as well. I have already said how these can be tested and falsified. Here are some of the predictions evolution has that have been tested: http://www.talkorigi...c/CA/CA210.html The whole thing is based on evidence, or haven't you been reading my links? I believe you forget that evolution had to fight its way into acceptance in the past 150 years and did so based on merit and evidence. [edit] odd formatting tried to destroy me[/edit]

Don't start misrepresenting me. Trisomy 21 was used as an example of information being added to the genome, not evolution. These are separate things, though they are involved with each other. The question wasn't information that was helpful to an organism, if you want that look up auto-polyploidy or hybridization in plants for fairly straight forward examples. There are many more if you care to look. Copies are new information, though not novel information. The interaction of genes changes causing novel traits or else Down Syndrome would not be a problem. You could also use Klinefelter's Syndrome to show the interaction, or just look at the plant examples. You could also look up horizontal gene transfer, which is very obviously adding novel information. You seemed to propose the Creation model, so evidence for it is needed. Unless you just want talk about evolution and ignore other models, which I'd be happy to do. Apologies, I misread your statement. As to them finding soft tissue, it probably wasn't: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/07/preserved-dinos/ http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0002808 Which is why it isn't used to age dinosaur fossils (also, it's 50,000 years). They use isotopes with a half-life over one million years old. Here's a little introduction to it: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/dinosaur-bone-age1.htm Note that this isn't the only way to show the age of the Earth. If there is no other model the current one cannot be displaced. Even if it only explained one very specific example and nothing else it would be used over nothing. Until another model better explains the current evidence as well as makes more accurate prediction it our current model will be used. Remember, wrong by degrees. As to, what I assume is, neo-Darwinian Theory (n-d-t) being bankrupt of scientific evidence; do you agree that there is competition among, as well as within, species? I showed a few ways in which evolution could be disproved, none of these things have happened. Not only that, nothing has been shown to disprove evolution. On the contrary every bit of evidence supports what is expected with the evolutionary model.

Nor does your opinion make anecdotes evidence. There is a reason you won't see anecdotes in a scientific journal. The point is it can't be used for evidence nor count as verified. Not because she definitely cheated, but because it would have been easy for her to cheat. That's why it doesn't hold up, what I think happened or what you think happened holds no weight. The methodology is flawed. Not quite a I don't care what swansont said, what is wrong with how I proposed to write the journal? Otherwise it's just reinforcing personal belief and cherry-picking. As I said before It begs the question because it was assumed communication while trying to show that the event was paranormal (communication without known means). If it wasn't communication it wasn't paranormal. The base statement assumes a paranormal communication to show it was a paranormal event. How is that not begging the question? No, I am not arguing it's not proof. I am arguing that it cannot be used as evidence in a scientific discussion. Since he is a practicing scientist he opinion of the necessities of science trumps yours, though what would be accepted as evidence in a science setting isn't an opinion, it's a practice. It may be, but doesn't that negate your statement of how his credentials as a practicing scientist aren't relevant? Your teaching an undergrad course, I can't remember how long ago and don't feel like searching, and him actively practicing for how-ever many years makes his experience supersede yours as to what is currently accepted in science. Will we have to get back on the chiropractor kick to show anecdotes shouldn't be used?

Personally I dislike Dawkins quite a bit when discussing religion, but his scientific writing I do enjoy. I have seen seen the stumped video about adding information and I could give you answers to the question he was asked if you like (hint: trisomy 21). More to the point, in science if there isn't evidence for an alternate model the current model stands. We are always wrong, but we are wrong by degrees. In effect, lack of evidence for one model isn't evidence for another. If Creationism really wants to supercede evolution it needs evidence as well as explanatory power (meaning it can explain what we see and predict what we may later find). You most likely wouldn't find flesh in a body that has decomposed for a long period of time. If anything that is evidence against Genesis because the younger the planet is the less time dinosaur flesh has to decompose. 14C has a half-life of around 6,000 years. There are trace amounts of that isotope in many places. How it is used in dating is certain types of rock are formed in fairly quick manner and have a fixed amount of 14C. I won't get into specifics of half-life, I don't feel I could explain it that well anyway, but after ~6,000 years half of that isotope will break down into Nitrogen-14. In another ~6,000 years half of the remaining 14C will break down into 14N, a quarter of the original. Using how much 14C is there compared to what is expected and the ratio of 14C and 14N, adjusting for the natural amount of 14N, you can get an approximate date of how old the fossils are. That being said, neither of those is positive evidence for your stance. It is still an attempt to find negative evidence of evolution which I already said I will go along with. As to not being able to get evidence against the evolutionary stance, which was said earlier, there are many ways in which evolution as it stands can be shown to be wrong. Some examples: A modern animal being found fossilized with prehistoric animals Organisms from, say, the Jurassic Period existing as their fossil forms Natural competition, with it selection would be, shown not to happen Static biomes Frequency of traits being static Materials of heredity, genes, being static I could go on, but I think the point has been made

I'll play ball here. So evolution is bunk and it is not true. Now if this stands how does Creationism become the accepted model? It's not the default, there are many other religions with creation myths, so what evidence allows Genesis to stand above the rest?