Science Disproves Evolution

megaman125 · Sep 21, 2013

They make claims that don't have scientific evidence following the scientific method, then try to pass them off as science. See: All the times I asked for scientific evidence demonstrating the transition of purely asexual reproducing organisms to purely sexual reproducing organism.

I already responded to this, but obviously you chose to ignore that. In your eyes it doesn't matter if I pick any one of those and explain, because in your eyes I'll be automatically wrong for opposing evolution. You're not going to accept anything to the contrary of your beliefs, and I'm not changing my beliefs either. The only goal you have in your continual prodding is to waste our time and wear us out. If I explain one, you'll just brush it off with one of your typical one-liners like, "Nope, you're wrong, do another one," just to get us to waste our time, cause strife, and nothing more.

Ichabod · Sep 21, 2013

megaman125 said:

Mitosis. Already answered that and provided links.

megaman125 said:

Why do you assume all these things? I just want you to show why one is not evidence. That is all.
But you can't because you don't know a thing about evolution. That's ok though, evolution is a fact
whether you believe in it or not.

Phillipy · Sep 22, 2013

megaman125 said:

Hii!
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"In the eukaryotic fossil record, sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.[SUP][49][/SUP] All sexually reproducing eukaryotic organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled species."
"If, as evidence indicates, sexual reproduction arose very early in eukaryotic evolution, the essential features of meiosis may have already been present in the prokaryotic ancestors of eukaryotes."

So, as the fossil record shows us the earliest eukaryotes were asexual, and later ones were sexual, evidence for the evolution of asexual organisms to sexually reproducing organisms can be the various ways we have verified the common ancestry of the eukaryote family tree, like genetics.

Phillipy · Sep 22, 2013

&
Bangiomorpha pubescens n. gen., n. sp.: implications for the evolution of sex, multicellularity, and the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes
"Combined with an increasingly resolved record of other Proterozoic eukaryotes, these fossils mark the onset of a major protistan radiation near the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic boundary."
"Sex was critical for the subsequent success of eukaryotes, not so much for the advantages of genetic recombination, but because it allowed for complex multicellularity."
"As such, the most reliable proxy for the first appearance of sex will be the first stratigraphic occurrence of complex multicellularity."
"Bangiomorpha pubescens is the first occurrence of complex multicellularity in the fossil record."
"The evolution of sex, as a proximal cause of complex multicellularity, may thus account for the Mesoproterozoic/Neoproterozoic radiation of eukaryotes."

megaman125 · Sep 22, 2013

Ichabod said:

No, that's not the evidence I asked for. I asked for a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that DEMONSTRATES the HYPOTHESIS that a PURELY ASEXUAL organism can evolve/transition into a PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organism, to which I've had multiple evolutionists admit that there is no such evidence, and hence, no good reason to believe the claim that it happened "billions of years ago."

Typical evolutionist. "You can't explain it because you don't know anything about evolution." It's the typical response evolutionists give whenever someone says they don't believe evolution and ask for details without accepting the vauge answers of "oh, it definetly evolved over millions of years," because evolutionists can't handle when their religious beliefs are questioned in the details, so instead they spew forth one-liners like "it's a fact whether you believe it or not," because all they can do is assume they are right instead of actually providing the details and scientific evidence that is asked for.

And that's why this conversation isn't worth having with you, not because "you're right and evolution is right," although that's the only possibility your arrogance will allow you to believe.

megaman125 · Sep 22, 2013

Phillipy said:

1. There were no fossils anywhere on that page.
2. I didn't ask for fossils, fossils are just fossils, not a scientific experiment that demonstrates things. I asked for a scientific experiment that demonstrates something. All I'm asking for is for evolution to follow the same standard of the scientific method that all the other science is suppposed to follow, but obviously evolution is excempt from this because "it's a fact, just beleive and assume it's true, therefore it's true." Sorry, but that's not science no matter how much you want it to be.

Once again, I can't wait until the day this garbage is taken out of the school curriculum.

Ichabod · Sep 22, 2013

megaman125 said:

Asexual to sexual reproduction has been observed in slime molds.
Slime mold - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

"Plasmodial slime molds reproduce sexually. Reproduction occurs during the immotile phase. In plasmodial slime molds, the plasmodium moves to a dry, well-lit area and hardens. Reproduction begins as asexual with the production of spores in frutifications that take on one of four forms."

And that's coming from a creationist resource!

About the billions of years, if you don't buy the time it takes for evolution to occur
you won't buy evolution, I'm afraid.

Phillipy · Sep 22, 2013

megaman125 said:

That's just an outright lie about the scientists working in the field of biology. Just because you don't understand any evidence, that doesn't mean the scientists in the appropriate fields don't. It's not assumption based, it's a model based on huge amounts of evidence and successful predictive power.

Those pages described that the earliest evidence for sexual reproduction is from life 1200 million years ago, and that there's evidence for life before that but not for sexual reproduction. So as I said, that given, proving they are related and the sexually reproducing organisms are the descendants of asexual ones, is the kind of evidence you are looking for. All the evidence for universal common ancestry IS evidence that asexual organisms can evolve into sexual ones.

Scientists aren't morons nor conspirators trying to hide the truth. They are trained in how to seek out unsupported assumptions and throw models into question.

megaman125 · Sep 22, 2013

Ichabod said:

That's not what I asked for. If it wasn't clear from the part of the article you quoted, allow me to quote from a later part.

"They can reproduce sexually or asexually"

Just because they can reproduce both ways does not mean we can conclude they're a transition between purely asexual and purely sexual. All it means is we found soemthing that can reproduce both ways. I asked for experiements and demonstration. Pointing to a fossil or pointing to an animal and saying "look, there it is" is not an experiement nor a demonstration.

And saying it's from a creationist resource is rather silly to point out, because I don't see anywhere in that article where they say it's a transition from purely asexual to purely sexual.

My problem isn't that it takes billions of years, my problem is that WE DON'T KNOW AND CAN'T PROVE that billions of years can make such radical claims a reality. It's just conjecture. And then evolutionists will use billions of years as an excuse why they don't have evidence. It's nothing more than "billions of years" of the gaps argument, and it's certainly not convincing to me.

Phillipy said:

No, it certainly is not evidence. Saying, "look at these different animals" is not a basis to conclude that a single living cell can magically grow up and evolve into a horse. Until you have the demonstratable and repeatable experiments, all you have is conjecture and guess work, not absolute fact.

Therefore evolution is true because they tell us it is. Don't question the billions of years paradigm, just believe what they tell you to believe and how they tell you to believe. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me, I'm not going to believe it just because someone says I should. If you're so threatened by me not believing in your tales about what supposedly happened billions of years ago, that's your problem. I'm not going to change my beliefs just because you claim that your relgion is fact.

Ichabod · Sep 22, 2013

megaman125 said:

That's not what I asked for. If it wasn't clear from the part of the article you quoted, allow me to quote from a later part.

"They can reproduce sexually or asexually"

Just because they can reproduce both ways does not mean we can conclude they're a transition between purely asexual and purely sexual. All it means is we found soemthing that can reproduce both ways. I asked for experiements and demonstration. Pointing to a fossil or pointing to an animal and saying "look, there it is" is not an experiement nor a demonstration.

And saying it's from a creationist resource is rather silly to point out, because I don't see anywhere in that article where they say it's a transition from purely asexual to purely sexual.

My problem isn't that it takes billions of years, my problem is that WE DON'T KNOW AND CAN'T PROVE that billions of years can make such radical claims a reality. It's just conjecture. And then evolutionists will use billions of years as an excuse why they don't have evidence. It's nothing more than "billions of years" of the gaps argument, and it's certainly not convincing to me.

No, it certainly is not evidence. Saying, "look at these different animals" is not a basis to conclude that a single living cell can magically grow up and evolve into a horse. Until you have the demonstratable and repeatable experiments, all you have is conjecture and guess work, not absolute fact.

Therefore evolution is true because they tell us it is. Don't question the billions of years paradigm, just believe what they tell you to believe and how they tell you to believe. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me, I'm not going to believe it just because someone says I should. If you're so threatened by me not believing in your tales about what supposedly happened billions of years ago, that's your problem. I'm not going to change my beliefs just because you claim that your relgion is fact.

You've moved the goalposts too far. No point in providing evidence if you've already made
your mind up to deny it beforehand. In contrast, if you were able to provide evidence that
actually disproved evolution I would not have a problem with it. Why is it that people who
claim evolution is a religion do not know anything about evolution? Sorry, it interferes with
the creation myth but that has long been known as metaphor anyway.

AvalonXQ · Sep 22, 2013

Ichabod said:

Because no one who actually understands science, or is educated about biology, would ever believe such a silly idea. The few hold-outs against the fact of common ancestry are those who have firmly decided never to learn enough about it to be convinced.

megaman125 · Sep 22, 2013

Ichabod said:

Asking for scientific evidence for something that claims to be scientific is moving the goalposts too far? Wow.

Welcome to why I don't care to talk with you about evidence that disproves evolution, because you won't listen to any of it, as you have already made up your mind to deny it beforehand, just like I've already made up my mind.

answersingenesis.org Knock yourself out. You don't like what that site presents? Not my problem.

Why is it people who claim evolution is a fact are willingly blind to how dogmatic evolution is and how it's nothing more than indoctrination?

So now you're the supreme authority on how I'm supposed to beleive the Bible? I don't think so. I'm going to continue believing the Bible and that God created. You're free to believe whatever you want, but just because you believe it doesn't make it a fact, no matter how much you claim it does.

AvalonXQ said:

So I guess the scientists that don't believe in evolution don't count then? I guess my friend that has a masters in biology and doesn't believe evolution "doesn't understand science." What a brilliant and compelling argument, just insult everyone that doesn't accept your religious doctrine.

Phillipy · Sep 22, 2013

megaman125 said:

The huge variety of independently built phylogenetic trees from comparative anatomy has had great success and predictive power, all converging on the same results from mapping the evolutionary history from any bone, nerve and muscle in the body. You misrepresent the vast body of science going on at work there with "look at these different animals". It's much more than that, just in comparative anatomy. But I was actually referring to the phylogenetic trees mapped out by genetics.

That's not even close to the angle I presented, I didn't say believe it without evidence or question, I didn't say believe it because they tell us. I was trying to discuss the evidence with you, not ask you to believe anything on blind faith.
I recommend you NOT to believe evolution until you understand it to be true. I recommend the same for everything. Blind faith is bad faith. And I didn't bring up my religion fact at all, we were talking about the scientific understanding of the history of life. We probably have the same religion, but you take the primitively interpreted messages expressed as almost fairy tale-like parables as a literal scientific history. Taking it all so literally most likely misses most of the ethical messages about responsibility, and certainly harms your ability to honestly explore man's modern scientific discoveries.

Phillipy · Sep 22, 2013

Here's an analogy: to me this feels like if in Jacob's dream he'd gone to the Moon for his wrestle with God, and the Moon was made of cheese in the dream, here in reality you'd be so confidently arguing that man had never gone to the moon, NASA scientists were conspirators and morons and all their work was religious, assumption based and presents no evidence of what the Moon is made of, and the Moon is really made of cheese.
Remember Galileo, and how slow the Church was to let go of geocentrism? That's what it's like for scientifically aware Christians like me to meet gnostically confident young Earth creationists.

megaman125 · Sep 22, 2013

Phillipy said:

Hey, that's fine, you believe whatever you want to. For me, I'd rather be held accountable for believing that God created rather than believing that God didn't create.

AvalonXQ · Sep 22, 2013

megaman125 said:

When you get right down to it, this is the key- the most common route for science denial is having something other than an interest for what is actually true, according to the evidence, as a reason for what you believe.

megaman125 · Sep 22, 2013

AvalonXQ said:

Hey, if that belief of yours is what makes you feel comfortable, then by all means. I've already given you links to creationist stuff, I've explained some of the issues I have with the doctrine of evolution. And likewise, you're posted your links and explained why you love the doctrine of evolution. It's more than obvious by now that neither of us is going to change their mind about their belief in evolution, so I'm cutting out very soon. You guys want to run around in the same circles with Pahu arguing over the same evidence and what is or isn't actually evidence while no one changes their stubborn minds, by all means if that's what makes you feel comfortable with your beliefs, you go ahead and do that. I've presented my side, you've presented yours, I'm keeping my beliefs, you can keep yours, the rest is whatever. There are far better things I could be doing when I'm on this site.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.
Matthew 11:15

ddallen · Sep 25, 2013

megaman125 said:

No, that's not the evidence I asked for. I asked for a SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT that DEMONSTRATES the HYPOTHESIS that a PURELY ASEXUAL organism can evolve/transition into a PURELY SEXUAL REPRODUCING organism, to which I've had multiple evolutionists admit that there is no such evidence, and hence, no good reason to believe the claim that it happened "billions of years ago." If you are looking for a scientific experiment where a lab based experiment shows the evolution from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction - then you will not find it. If you are basing your acceptance of scientific fact purely on this type of evidence then you are going to have to throw out a lot of our modern science, i.e. I cannot show you any experiment that will show an electron, yet they do exist. Science and scientists use observation and examination of evidence. They look at the data and come up with an hypothesis. This hypothesis is tested against the evidence and predictions are made, i.e. for C to have happened, A and B must also have happened in that order, if that is true then D must be the next step. When they find evidence of D then they know they are on the right track. This data is sent for publication where a team of their peers look to falsify the data, see where it is wrong, only if it passes this test is the data published and becomes a scientific theory. Even after this many scientists will examine it to see if it is wrong - nothing is accepted on face value - and if at some later stage further data becomes available that disproves the original hypothesis - it is adapted or scrapped as appropriate.

Typical evolutionist. "You can't explain it because you don't know anything about evolution." It's the typical response evolutionists give whenever someone says they don't believe evolution and ask for details without accepting the vauge answers of "oh, it definetly evolved over millions of years," because evolutionists can't handle when their religious beliefs are questioned in the details, so instead they spew forth one-liners like "it's a fact whether you believe it or not," because all they can do is assume they are right instead of actually providing the details and scientific evidence that is asked for.

And that's why this conversation isn't worth having with you, not because "you're right and evolution is right," although that's the only possibility your arrogance will allow you to believe.

See above in this colour

Ichabod · Sep 25, 2013

ddallen said:

And even if we couldn't show an experiment from asexual to sexual
there's still this

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

And this

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And this

List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and the genetic evidence, molecular evidence, protein evidence,
embryological evidence, biogeography and speciation, homology,
bacteriology, etc.

RickShafer · Sep 25, 2013

It's funny how all of the freshly propagandized youth cling to this despicable hypothesis - (evolution).
- Science falsely so-called.
In Darwin's day they thought maggots spontaneously generated out of rancid meat.
Also they thought a single living cell was "simple".

(Excuse me) - - - - - - -

AaaaaHa,Ha,Ha!

Science Disproves Evolution

megaman125

Guest

Ichabod

Banned

Phillipy

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

megaman125

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Ichabod

Banned

Phillipy

Guest

megaman125

Guest

Ichabod

Banned

AvalonXQ

Banned

megaman125

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

Phillipy

Guest

megaman125

Guest

AvalonXQ

Banned

megaman125

Guest

ddallen

Guest

Ichabod

Banned

RickShafer

Banned