We Did Not Evolve

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of which proves evolution to the scale that you believe.
You have lots of different definitions of what evolution is.
For example- Fruit fly changes into a fruit fly. It is still a fruit fly but it adapts itself to certain variables. You then go on to assume that this sort of 'evidence' therefore proves common descent and the ability to evolve from one kind into another over time.

That is one seriously big and bold assumption.
 
I can't and never said I could, nor can anyone else. I couldn't care less what people believe I just don't think people should claim evolution as fact like so many people do.

That last part wasn't aimed at you.
 


Evidence for evolution.

Mammals that are quite easily observed to have adapted to an aquatic environment.
 
lol @ lizard the troll

lol @ the sad little law student with no life and nothing better to do than sit here on Sherdog all day clocking up thousands of posts. And it would be much more evident if all the religious threads weren't wastelanded.

"I'm just sat at work!" I hear you say.

Great job you have there Mr Law student. Tea boy?
 
I think a good analogy is gravity.

Gravity has been a known fact for hundreds of years. We know that it exists.
The actual mechanics behind how gravity operates is a very modern understanding.

We know living things tend to evolve. Yet we are still learning details on how.

It's a great analogy.

We know gravity happens. It's the mechanisms we have trouble explaining.

The problem for a number of people is that they refute evolution because they think that evolution negates god which simply isn't true.

It may pose problems for a literal interpretation of a certain God. But it certainly doesn't negate the existence of God.
 
So how do you define "fact" and "evidence"?

I'm not the one whose definition is the issue.
Macro evolution is accepted by many here to be fact based on supposed evidence. What evidence might this be?

*I have to bear in mind that evolutionists get annoyed if I say something could be taken as evidence for the same creator rather than the same ancestor*
 


Evidence for evolution.

Mammals that are quite easily observed to have adapted to an aquatic environment.

One of my favorite examples are tree Kangaroo's. You can easily trace the evolution, from tree dwelling marsupials, to ground dwelling Kangaroo's, back to tree dwelling marsupials. It's really amazing.
 
Here's a skeleton of a transitional species:
4364-700x466.jpg
 
I'm not the one whose definition is the issue.
Macro evolution is accepted by many here to be fact based on supposed evidence. What evidence might this be?

*I have to bear in mind that evolutionists get annoyed if I say something could be taken as evidence for the same creator rather than the same ancestor*

The thing is that no conclusion can ever truly be a fact.
Take my gravity example, it is a fact that there is evidence that something pulls me down to the earth and I call it gravity.

If I where to draw the conclusion that all things are drawn together by gravity, there is always some doubt.

The evidence of gravity is an indisputable fact, but the past, future and unobserved traits of gravity are all to some degree speculation.
 
The thing is that no conclusion can ever truly be a fact.
Take my gravity example, it is a fact that there is evidence that something pulls me down to the earth and I call it gravity.

If I where to draw the conclusion that all things are drawn together by gravity, there is always some doubt.

The evidence of gravity is an indisputable fact, but the past, future and unobserved traits of gravity are all to some degree speculation.

That's not the same.
Something holds us down on the ground. We call it gravity. That's it.
 
That's not the same.
Something holds us down on the ground. We call it gravity. That's it.

Something happens to organisms over periods of time as they adapt to the environment. We call it evolution. That's it.
 
Something happens to organisms over periods of time as they adapt to the environment. We call it evolution. That's it.

I can be observed being held down on the ground by this thing we call gravity. I'm like it every day.

What about your example?

*And adapting to the environment is not what we call evolution*
 
Does anybody have a link to the found missing link between humans and apes? Thanks
 
That's not the same.
Something holds us down on the ground. We call it gravity. That's it.

My point is that there will never be an absolute conclusive fact as to how we got where we are.

Even if God came down from heaven and said, "The creation in the Bible was all a parable, you are a product of evolution, you descended from monkeys, the scientist are right."
And the proceeded to will the skies with images of evolution throughout history.

There would still be some doubt, God maybe was testing us. Maybe God was just god and he was an alien being messing with us. Maybe it was a massive government hoax. Maybe itr was just a massive worldwide acid trip! etc...

But if there is no evidence contradicting the conclusion, it is irrational to do so.
 
Does anybody have a link to the found missing link between humans and apes? Thanks
Any comment on the links we've given you so far?

Have you read them? Do you understand the evolution is both a fact and a theory?

<object width="425" height="353"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ba75iKWtBbg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ba75iKWtBbg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="353"></embed></object>
 
Any comment on the links we've given you so far?

Have you read them? Do you understand the evolution is both a fact and a theory?

<object height="353" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ba75iKWtBbg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="353" width="425"></object>

Work!!!

It's obvious that the skull they show at the end is made of plastic!
 
I can be observed being held down on the ground by this thing we call gravity. I'm like it every day.

What about your example?

*And adapting to the environment is not what we call evolution*

Yes, and evolution has been observed as well and Mens and I provided links.

Adaptation is part of evolution.

I don't care what "you" call evolution. I care about how science defines evolution. That's all that matters.

Evolution is descent with modification. That's basically it.

The mechanisms are mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection.

Adaptation is a part of evolution.
 
Why do these stubborn creationists think that the world cares what they believe?

They pretend to be honestly curious. They ask questions. Then they start in with bogus objections, impossible standards of proof, and saying that we cannot convince them personally.

Well creationists, there's bad news. The scientific community has accepted this theory; they've accepted evolution for good reasons. They do not care about your ignorance.
 
My point is that there will never be an absolute conclusive fact as to how we got where we are.

Precisely.
Comparing gravity to evolution is retarded. Now as you have just rightly pointed out (I assume you meant it along these lines) comparing our actual existance to gravity is fair.

We are here, we know we are. But there are no facts to say how we got here.

Gravity is the name we give to the force that holds us on the ground. Gravity exists and is a fact only because this is the name we give to that force. But there are no facts to explain what gravity actually is.

Gravity=Fact. (But unexplainable)
Our existance=Fact. (But unexplainable)
Evolution=Belief. (Based on interpretation of certain evidence)
Creator=Belief. (Based on interpretation of certain evidence)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top