does evolution exsist

okay, i will accept that

none? as in zero?
got any sources for this statement, such as "science", "pubmed", or plos?

according to "science" AND gould the rarity of transitional fossils, aka "missing links", is the trade secret of paleontolog

step back and look at what you just wrote billy.
the above reeks of creationism.

i may be wrong but i think the cambrian layer proves you wrong.
edit:
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiology/CambrianExplosion.htm
end edit.

and what if something on that order was found?
instead of objectively analyzing the situation you will hear "fraud", deceit","fake","fluke", maybe even sabotage.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the following is typical of someone presenting rock hard evidence against what evolution says:
http://disputatio.com/articles/006-1.pdf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First of all, I can't believe you guys are still bickering over whether or not evolution makes predictions, as if making general already-common-knowledge predictions counts for anything, especially if the theory is wrong anyway. My idea of intelligent design makes the same tired predictions as evolution does. ID also "predicts" that bacteria and other animals will adapt and change, and that certain fossils will be found at certain layers because they existed at different times. Duh, really? Thanks for the heads up Nostradamus. (Did evolution really predict this, or did some guys just figure it out when they dug up the bones?)

The problem with evolution is that it's more prediction than it is observation... more wishful thinking than common sense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which species does you believe were 'intelligently designed'?

 

this is a statement of fact. where is your evidence of evolution being false?
the evidence in this thread alone is enough to convince me of microevolution.

in my opinion consistently predicting future events would be pretty strong evidence.

 

I believe all life on earth was intelligently designed. Any evolution which takes place after the original creation is due to the pre-programmed flexibility of the DNA.

 

That is good. Do you have any reason why micro-evolution acting for 100,000 generation could not create a fish with lungs and some with quite "Leg/arm-like" bone structures in their fins? (They both exist.)* Would you call that accumulate change "macro-evolution"? Or would that be macro-evolution only after the evolving "fish" lived on land?

Well 100 or so years ago evolutionists did predict (in the future to them) and describe details of many "missing links" - Not all have been found, (yet?), but many have been. I would like to again direct your attention to Trilobite - 10 different order that can (and were) placed into an evolution sequence (time ordered) based on their changing shapes. This of course makes a prediction - I.e. things like "order 3 will be found in higher strata then orders 1 & 2 and in lower strata than the later orders." Note this prediction is based on their changing shapes but is in fact confirmed by what strata they are found in. There are more than 20,000 species within these 10 orders.

That makes a lot (> 100,000) of implicit predictions about the layers of UNDISTURBED strata the trilobites will be found in. How many old predictions, confirmed by future events, (which are now in our past) do you require to be "strong evidence"?

--------------
*
“… Using medical x-rays, Alhberg and his team created a three-dimensional image of a fin belonging to Panderichthys, a coastal fish that lived about 385 million years ago during the Devonian period.
The scans revealed the ancient fish had many of the same bones that make up a modern human arm, including the humerus, radius, and ulna, as well as four small "radial" bones that look remarkably like rudimentary fingers, the authors said.
Unlike human fingers, however, Panderichthys's digits were concealed in the fleshy arm-like base of its fin. With the origins of tetrapods, the outermost part of the fin was lost, allowing the "fingers" that were always present at the base of the fin to emerge, Ahlberg said.
Many scientists {however} regard Tiktaalik as a "missing link": the crucial transitional animal between fish and the first tetrapods. …”
The research was detailed in 21 September 2008 journal Nature. But quote above was copied from: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/09/080924-fish-fingers.html so you can access it with a click.

 

yes i doubt macro evolution for 2 reasons:
1. it has never been demonstrated in the lab.
2.

-Science, vol. 210 no. 4472 pp: 883-887

some bonifide science sources would probably help.

about your national geographic link, weren't they in on one of the many hoax's of the fossil record?
i'll find it.
edit:
http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218391539

 

How do you demonstrate the accumulation of small changes until it no longer resembles it's parent species in the space of one scientist's lifetime? That's an unreasonable expectation and in any case unnecessary.

 

One conceptual problem that concerns me is the fossil data is discontinuous. This is nobody's fault, just of the trillions of theoretical samples, we may have collected in the low millions.

The discontinuous nature of the data collection would force us to conclude that the data says the model needs to be discontinuous. Is that conclusion a philosophical bias due to the naturel of science and data?

Let me give an example. I make a continuous line of popcorn around my house. The birds come and randomly eat the popcorn. Now the line is discontinuous. Even though I made a continuous line, I would be called a liar, since the data clearly shows the line is not continuous.

If we had all the samples possible (all the popcorn), could our conclusion be different from the conclusion draw which use only partial and discontinuous data?

 

that is the responsibility of the person or persons formulating the hypothesis.

not my problem.
ask the people that decided to elevate evolution to the status of theory without subjecting it to the rigors of science.

 

What you are suggesting is not necessary to science. We can't run that experiment, but we don't have to. There is no essential difference between small changes and their accumulative effect. That's like asking us to create the Grand Canyon in the lab after we have demonstrated erosion on a small scale.

 

the many known fossil frauds leads me to believe that someone is desperate for evidence, anything to prove their pet theory.
you also can't interpret the fossil record with evolution then point to that interpretation as proof of evolution, something that happens quite often.

 

Who discovered those few frauds? It was science. I think that demonstrates the value of science.

 

edit:
i have spent some time on the following site after making this post.
although i cannot vouch for the validity of the evidence it presented i left the site feeling it was creationist in nature.
it does however appear objective.
end edit.

the following appears to be an objective website.

their mission statement:

http://www.epicidiot.com/

 

That's a strange kind of relativism. In thinking there is still a controversy, they give a false impression of the issue, and more value to frauds than they are worth.

 

contact the owner of the site and tell them your concerns, i'm sure they will ask you for documented evidence though.

question:
how are they (epicidiot) giving a false impression?
are you denying anything that was presented?

 

The idiot analysis of the theist Behe have long been discredited. He fails to recognize that the components of such allegedly irreducible structures of the bacteria flagellum can be found in a more primitive state in other bacteria. He also does not acknowledge that parts of a living structure could have originally had other uses, and that there can be transitional parts that disappear when no longer needed, leading to the appearance of irreducibility.

 

Death anxiety linked to acceptance of intelligent design: study

Research conducted at the University of British Columbia and Union College found that people's death anxiety was associated with support of intelligent design and rejection of evolutionary theory.

Death anxiety also influenced those in the study to report an increased liking for Michael Behe, a prominent proponent of intelligent design, and an increased disliking for Richard Dawkins, a well-known evolutionary biologist.

The findings suggest that people are motivated to believe in intelligent design and doubt evolutionary theory because of unconscious psychological motives.