TheWay wrote:This post was made to address Evolution the responsibility doesnt fall on me to disprove it but rather on you to prove it. I have already explained this once but if you are looking for things that disprove a theory well I ahve cited a bunch already.
Yes it does fall on you to bring evidence to the table to try to disprove evolution because their is a tone of evidence to support the theory.
If you make a grand statement you should have some reasonable evidence to support it.
This is what you said so i'm going to hold it to you as standard from now on.
SO lets take a look at your "reasonable" evidence
TheWay wrote:1. Canmbrian Explosian with no intermediaries before or after the explosian which was a sudden and abrupt appearance of most the phyla currently known.
The Cambrian was a period of life that began about 540 million years ago, and lasted until about 480 million years ago. For over 3 billion years previous to the Cambrian, life existed almost exclusively as single-celled organisms. At the time of the Cambrian period, however, multicellular life appeared, and rapidly diversified to produce organisms as different as sponges, trilobites, and strange animals that resembled nothing alive today. (The process was "rapid" when view in geological terms -- the actual process required at least 10 or 15 million years). The Cambrian organisms are best known from the Burgess Shale fossils, which were described by Stephen Jay Gould in his best-selling book Wonderful Life.
Starting about 30 years ago, we began to develop a very extensive and impressive fossil record of pre-Cambrian creatures. They are, indeed, only single-celled creatures. And the reason we haven't found them before is because we were looking for larger fossils in different kinds of rocks.
So ID(intelligent design) scientists had to acknowledge that, and they then shifted the argument and said that, "All right, these are only single-celled creatures and they are not ancestors to the more complicated forms that arise in the Cambrian, but there are no fossils of multi-cellular animals before the Cambrian strata." But we've known now for about twenty years that that, too, is false. There is one rather well known fauna called the Ediacaran fauna, after a place in Australia where it was first found, but now, in fact, found on almost every continent of the earth.
"These fossils are pre-Cambrian. They are not very ancient pre-Cambrian fossils. They occur in rocks pretty much just before the Cambrian. They are caught all over the world invariably in strata below the first appearance of still invertebrate fossils.
And the creation scientists, as far as I can see, for the most part, just simply ignore the existence of the Ediacaran fauna. (Gould testimony, McLean v Arkansas transcript, 1982)"
The intelligent design assertion that "all the major groups of life" appear suddenly in the Cambrian period without any ancestors, is simply wrong. There are, for instance, no plants at all anywhere in the Cambrian. Reptiles, fish, birds and mammals didn't exist then -- the only vertebrate that existed at the time was Pikaia, a tiny creature that looked something like the modern amphioxus. No terrestrial organisms of any sort existed -- the Cambrian fauna were entirely aquatic.
2. Lack of fossil records for any of the transitional periods between any species but specifically apes to humans.
Creationists who make this claim are often not really asking for any single example, as biologists generally are used to using the term. Instead, the request is really for a full series intermediate fossils: a request that is both unnecessary and also generally impossible to satisfy. When you show a transitional form between Fossil A and Z (let’s call the new fossil ‘G’) creationists can always ask for fossil C and P. When C and P are dug up, then they ask for B, F, Q and W, and so on. This continues until you show a fossil from every individual organism from every population that ever existed on this planet: until then they can always ask for more intermediate forms. We know from how fossilization works that this expectation is simply wrong: we should never expect to see such a complete fossil record, and the validity of evolution does not rest on finding this impossible circumstance and never has.
Their arguments flaws are:
No True Scotsman (ad hoc usage of term 'transitional fossil')
Equivocation (what is meant by "transitional fossil")
Straw Man (inaccurate portrayal of nature of transitional fossil/completeness of fossil record)
Suppressed Evidence (of good examples of transitional fossils)
....Just to name a few
They also don't want people to know about all the genetic research going on showing links between different species. Here is one detailing the genetic link found between apes and humans supporting evolution theory.
Link the journal:
http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol77No1/41.pdfsummary: When one looks at the chromosomes of humans and the living great apes (orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzee), it is immediately apparent that there is a great deal of similarity between the number and overall appearance of the chromosomes across the four different species.The four species have a similar number of chromosomes, with the apes all having 24 pairs, and humans having 23 pairs. Furthermore, these diagrams show the similarity of the chromosomes in that every one of 1,000 nonheterochromatic G-bands has been accounted for in the four species. That means that each non-heterochromatic band has been located in each species.
3. the fact that most the material and so called facts evolution used to indoctrinate you and many others was proven to be false or at the very least understood and tuaght incorrectly. AKA the icons of evolution.
This is a Reification. we are discussing this very topic right now. I have been showing evidence supporting evolution for 5 pages. WE ARE DISCUSSING THE EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO MAKE THIS CLAIM RIGHT NOW!!!!
Fruit Fly,
Ill assume your argument concerns the fact Fruit flies have been mutated and bred in laboratories for generations, but they are still fruit flies. (please make this clearer next time)
This argument ascribes a false assumption of worthlessness to the enormous number of experiments performed on fruit flies, including the study of the properties and behavior of chromosomes, Mendelian genetics, the examination of HOX genes, as well as insect behavior.
"Fruit flies" covers an immensely large number of species(about 2,600 species). The purpose of many fruit fly experiments was not to transform them into new and different organism, but to manipulate their genes in order to discover what the functions of these genes are. In such experiments, researchers manipulate the genes that produce or regulate the growth of already existent structures in fruit flies. The researchers can not manipulate fruit fly genes in order to cause non-arthropod features (horns, bones, feathers, molluscan radulas, etc) to manifest in fruit flies. The purpose of these experiments was/is to demonstrate what each gene in the fruit fly genome does, not to create a fly with horns, bones, or feathers.
england moths
You have to be more specific on this one because i found a bunch of different claims based on different arguments
skull of lucy
I am going to have assume again that your talking about Charles Oxnard , and his paper that is widely cited by ID, claimed, based on his multivariate analyses, that australopithecines(Lucy) are no more closely related, or more similar, to humans than modern apes are. Many groups criticized this conclusion on a number of grounds. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a few skeletal bones which were usually fragmentary and often poorly preserved. The measurements did not describe the complex shape of some bones, and did not distinguish between aspects which are important for understanding locomotion from those which were not. Finally, there is "an overwhelming body of evidence", based on the work of nearly 30 scientists, which contradicts Oxnard's work. These studies used a variety of techniques, including those used by Oxnard, and were based on many different body parts and joint complexes. They overwhelmingly indicate that australopithecines resemble humans more closely than the living apes(the overwhelming scientific consensus today).
4. natural selection functions to contain a species in its acceptable parameters by disallowing the procreation of negetivly mutated creature.
Yes it does
5. There are no examples or evidence of positive mutations.
The claim is beside the point. Evolution is a two part process—variation and selection—the claim ignores selection processes. Whether a mutation is harmful or beneficial or neutral in terms of increasing the functionality or survival of an organism is highly contextual: a mutation that can be harmful in one environment (such as a decreased subcutaneous fat layer on a polar animal) could turn out to be helpful if the environment changes (such as if the temperature increases). Aside from mutations which simply destroy embryonic development or cause premature death, there is no real "objective" measure of whether a mutation is harmful or not. Similarly, whether or not a mutation is ultimately harmful or beneficial can also be quite complex. Sickle Cell Anemia, although life-threatening when homozygous, can result in a benefit. People who are heterozygous for sickle cell anemia are 25% less likely to get malaria from mosquitoes, as the sickle cells die almost immediately after the malarial parasites enter them. Most mutations are actually classified as "neutral," given that their effects are not salient enough to effect an organism one way or the other at the present time. However, the accumulation of such small changes can have an effect over time, or could prove beneficial in a different context or because of a subsequent mutation.
Gene variants have been studied:
* The CKR5 gene produces a protein which determines what is able to enter a cell. An allele produced by a single nucleotide deletion in the CKR5 gene confers resistance to HIV (Dean et al. 1996).
* A point mutation in the LPR5 gene causes high bone density, which could be adaptive in environments where one is likely to be injured. (Boyden et al. 2002)
* The HbS gene that causes the harmful trait of sickle cell anemia also has the benefit of providing some resistance to the disease malaria (a selective advantage in some environments).
Beneficial or not, depends on the context. Therefore most are classified as neutral.
6. I have made the case that intellegent life requires an intelleigent creator and the idea that all this happened by accident is beyond ridiculus. In support of the intelligent creator I have cited the argument by Behe irreducable complexity.
Why Micheal Behe's hypothesis is wrong:
Faulty assumption #1: Evolution can only proceed by adding parts, never by removing them. In fact, evolution can remove parts as easily as add new ones (perhaps more easily, even). If the system functions better without a given part, there will be selective pressure to remove it. Some species of bats, spiders and deep-water fish lack functioning eyes; it costs resources to grow eyes, for little or no benefit. Whales, although once quadrapeds, no longer have functioning hind legs. Humans no longer have decernable tails.
Faulty assumption #2: Biological systems never change function. However, the components of an irreducibly complex system, individually or together, can serve a purpose other than that performed by the final system. As Kenneth Miller likes to demonstrate, a mousetrap with a missing trigger can be used as a tie clip; if the spring is missing, it can still be used as a key chain; and the base by itself can be used as a paperweight.
Faulty assumption #3: Helpful parts cannot become required parts. But most "IC systems", when examined across many organisms, exhibit variability in what parts are required.
no system that has been identified as Irreducibly Complex should be viewed as a product of design until a more accurate and testable definition of Irreducible Complexity has been proposed. (HOW I DO SCIENCE??? and FAlSE DICHOTOMY???? )
A natural bridge is a system which is no longer functional if any of its parts were removed. If such systems could not evolve in a natural process, we had to conclude, that there is a designer of natural bridges. But we know how natural bridges were formed, softer rock has been washed out from under harder rock. The predecessors did not have the same functionality.
Though the evolution of organisms is different from the processes shaping natural bridges, this counterexample shows that natural processes are perfectly capable of producing so-called "irreducible complexity" and there are in fact "clocks without clockmakers", or rather bridges without bridgebuilder
7. Evolution has no answer for the begining of the universe so even if evolution occured there still is no answer for the universe other then some more conjecture and a need to denie a soveriegn God.
Out of Context, Evolution deals with speciation not the origin of the universe.
(I burn your Strawman down)
8. this argument then falls into the realm of philosophy and religion and requires arguments that do not belong in this topic.
In the end though I dont have to disprove something that has never been proven hence why it is still a theory. It's very telling every time I ahve these discussions how strong the views are on the other side from people that don't believeinfaith and yet expend an insane amount of faith just to hold to an argument that protects them from needing faith. Hmm a bad place for someone who only gains knowledge from the five senses especialy since your senses can lie to you. Actaully nevermind these arguments don't belong in this debate either.
Epistemology aside. A theory in scientific sense takes facts, and uses the facts for an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. And, again you make a reaffirmation of the position we are debating.
Faith 1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction ; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
Well since Their is a ton of proof supporting evolution I think you misunderstand the what faith means.
I hope that satisfies you.[/quote]
.
