Five questions that evolutionists can't answer

[Darth Wong]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not. It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

Provide evidence that you are actually reading any of our posts, rather than simply pounding out canned cookie-cutter responses.

For example, break down one of our rebuttals, point by point, and show how its factual basis or logical deductions are unjustifiable. So far, you have never done that, and I don't think you are capable of doing so.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not. It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

So why do you choose to believe in the Bible, then, fucknuts? Either starting posting evidence, right now, that the Bible is an accurate depiction of events, or acknowledge that belief in the Bible is no different from belief in the Mahabharata. Because I'd worship Lord Rama, the paragon of honour, He Who Makes the Universe Scream, before I worship your useless glorified faerie.

You have proved nothing. Evolution is the most convenient answer to the facts at hand, the simplest, the most straightforward. Whether or not there is proof for it is immaterial because it is the most logical and rational belief system, the simplest available, to fit the facts. There is plenty of proof for evolution but I don't need to post it here because you should accept evolution as correct without that proof, because it is the most rational and simplest theory available to fit the facts. It is logical to accept evolution as correct, and illogical to do anything else, let alone believe in the preposterous idea of a single omnipotnent God creating the universe.

[K. A. Pital]

Because I'd worship Lord Rama, the paragon of honour, He Who Makes the Universe Scream, before I worship your useless glorified faerie.

Certainly a good choice. You might also look into the Old Ones, like Cthulhu or Yog-Sothoth. Slaanesh also sounds good but she's not awaken yet.

After all, if "you can't prove anything" is enough of a foundation to have wacky beliefs, I'd go with something entertaining.

[wautd]

Jesus titty-fucking Christ, how the hell did I missed this topic. Why was I not informed?

[wishful]

Do you even realize that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to see?

This is a vast simplification. First of all, if evolution is taking place, to the extent that you believe, then the rate of evolution would be affected by the lifespan of the organism in question. With that in mind, scientists have been studying bacteria for a long time, long enough for any supposed evolutionary changes to happen, and be observed in the laboratory. And yet, there has been no observed evidence of bacteria evolving anything. Yes, we all know bacteria has the unusual ability to assimilate dna from other organisms. There are not mutations, and this does not explain the origins of human life.

It absolutely takes faith to believe that evolution is the end all be all explanation for the vast variety of life. Evolution has not been proven, and you now admit that it has not been observed, since you readily admit it would take hundreds of thousands of years to observe. Therefore, if you want to prove evolution, you must either do it directly by showing that evolution must be the answer, or you must rule out all other answers.

You can do neither of those. soz It's all good though, cuz I can't do either of them myself. Just admit it. It's silly to carry on as if there is no question as to whether evolution is THE answer.

[Darth Wong]

Wishful, if you don't start answering peoples' previous points, we're going to get tired of this charade and boot your ass out. No doubt you will claim that you were persecuted for having a different opinion than most of the people here, but the fact is that every single point in your most recent cookie-cutter post has already been addressed earlier in this thread. You are clearly ignoring rebuttals, and that is explicitly against the rules.

Your next post had better address the many responses to your claims rather than simply repeating your claims yet again.

[General Zod]

Do you even realize that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to see?

This is a vast simplification. First of all, if evolution is taking place, to the extent that you believe, then the rate of evolution would be affected by the lifespan of the organism in question. With that in mind, scientists have been studying bacteria for a long time, long enough for any supposed evolutionary changes to happen, and be observed in the laboratory. And yet, there has been no observed evidence of bacteria evolving anything. Yes, we all know bacteria has the unusual ability to assimilate dna from other organisms. There are not mutations, and this does not explain the origins of human life.

mutation
5 entries found for mutation.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: mu·ta·tion
Pronunciation: myü-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a significant and basic alteration : CHANGE
2 : UMLAUT
3 a : a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b : an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation

Is English even your first language? Or are you really just nothing more than some freshman's pet AI project? Because you really sound like a retarded chatbot.

It absolutely takes faith to believe that evolution is the end all be all explanation for the vast variety of life. Evolution has not been proven, and you now admit that it has not been observed, since you readily admit it would take hundreds of thousands of years to observe. Therefore, if you want to prove evolution, you must either do it directly by showing that evolution must be the answer, or you must rule out all other answers.

Are you stuck on an Echo function or something?

[Ted C]

And yet, there has been no observed evidence of bacteria evolving anything.

Antibiotic resistance.

Beyond that, since bacteria reproduce by fission without an exchange of DNA, the differentiation between populations into species is more difficult to define. Typically we define the point of separation into different species when isolated populations will no longer spontaneously breed with each other if reintroduced; that's not a definition that works with organisms that don't actually breed. This makes it hard to decide when bacteria populations that have been adapting to different environments have actually diverged into different species.

It's actually much easier with fruit flies. Via artificial selection, you can pretty easily split a population and into to groups and cause each group to differentiate from the other enough that it will no longer breed with the other when reintroduced.

Yes, we all know bacteria has the unusual ability to assimilate dna from other organisms. There are not mutations, and this does not explain the origins of human life.

Assimilating foreign DNA into your own genome is unquestionably a mutation. Any fairly permanent DNA change, especially one that is passed to descendants, qualifies.

It absolutely takes faith to believe that evolution is the end all be all explanation for the vast variety of life.

No, it just takes examining the evidence and following it to its logical conclusion without putting up any magical barriers.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

This is a vast simplification. First of all, if evolution is taking place, to the extent that you believe, then the rate of evolution would be affected by the lifespan of the organism in question. With that in mind, scientists have been studying bacteria for a long time, long enough for any supposed evolutionary changes to happen, and be observed in the laboratory. And yet, there has been no observed evidence of bacteria evolving anything. Yes, we all know bacteria has the unusual ability to assimilate dna from other organisms. There are not mutations, and this does not explain the origins of human life.

Fuck your ass to hell and back you arrogant lying fuckhead! My GOD and all that's holy, but how do you have the bald-faced arrogance and incredible audacity to say such an utterly ridiculous and COMPLETELY FALSE thing?

Let's try this, asshole:

WHY DO YOU NEED TO GET A NEW FLU SHOT EVERY SINGLE YEAR, SHITSTAIN? Yes, it's a virus, not a bacteria, but how the hell do you care to explain that one short of evolution, even? Oh, that's right, you can't. And if we want to address bacteria themselves directly, why don't we use Sulfa Drugs instead of anti-biotics? Are you going to tell us that due to entropy Sulfa Drugs have devolved and become less effective while the bacteria have remained the same?

I honestly think that in the history of the board there's never been a care of more wilfull dishonesty and distortion than this singularity of dishonesty packed into a single sentence.

Just get him the fuck out, Mike, I'll respectfully submit--he doesn't need another chance. This deserves to go on your list on your website just for the incredible humour value of someone claiming with a straight face that bacteria have not been observed to evolve.

[Ariphaos]

Honestly, I think he's a troll who is just getting a kick out of wasting your time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Honestly, I think he's a troll who is just getting a kick out of wasting your time.

No, we're getting a kick at laughing at his insanity, so no time is being wasted.

[wishful]

Antibiotic resistance.

Beyond that, since bacteria reproduce by fission without an exchange of DNA, the differentiation between populations into species is more difficult to define. Typically we define the point of separation into different species when isolated populations will no longer spontaneously breed with each other if reintroduced; that's not a definition that works with organisms that don't actually breed. This makes it hard to decide when bacteria populations that have been adapting to different environments have actually diverged into different species.

It's actually much easier with fruit flies. Via artificial selection, you can pretty easily split a population and into to groups and cause each group to differentiate from the other enough that it will no longer breed with the other when reintroduced.

Neither of those points to evolution. They can be explained as variation that is already in the gene pool. Do we know if there were bacteria that weren't resistant to the antibiotics that we have? What we have done is eliminate most of the bacteria that isn't resistant, thus leaving the resistant ones behind

Assimilating foreign DNA into your own genome is unquestionably a mutation. Any fairly permanent DNA change, especially one that is passed to descendants, qualifies.

We can play semantics here, but that is not a result of evolution. Again, the dna was dna that was already in existance, and not a case of new dna resulting from a mistake in dna synthesis. This has is simply a trait that dna has. Does any other organism have this trait? Is that how humans came to be? Did the monkeys assimilate the dna of another species and then become humans?

No, it just takes examining the evidence and following it to its logical conclusion without putting up any magical barriers.

mutation
5 entries found for mutation.
To select an entry, click on it.

Main Entry: mu·ta·tion
Pronunciation: myü-'tA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 : a significant and basic alteration : CHANGE
2 : UMLAUT
3 a : a relatively permanent change in hereditary material involving either a physical change in chromosome relations or a biochemical change in the codons that make up genes; also : the process of producing a mutation b : an individual, strain, or trait resulting from mutation

Are you familiar with the Ptolemaic System? This is a classic example that demonstrates the very real possibility that a theory can make accurate predictions, as the Ptolemaic System can do to this day, and still be completely wrong. I submit that this is one reason why evolution is not proven. We simply have not obtained enough evidence to rule out all other possibilities, and we do not have enough evidence to prove evolution to be correct.

Evolution is the most convenient answer to the facts at hand, the simplest, the most straightforward.

This last quote is the closest you have come to admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit. Evolution is a convenient theory. If I were to not believe in a God that created the universe, then I would need an explanation as to how life came about. After all, we are here, and there must be a reason for it. I find it very suspicious though that in a universe so devoid of intelligent entities, that such amazing order and structure would come about by complete random chance. Given the odds, would it not be more likely that no life, and especially sentient life would have sprung up completely by chance?

[SirNitram]

I find it very suspicious though that in a universe so devoid of intelligent entities, that such amazing order and structure would come about by complete random chance.

The clearest proof yet the retard doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Order and structure? By the void, has he even examined the pure chaos that is creation?

[Darth Wong]

Neither of those points to evolution. They can be explained as variation that is already in the gene pool.

Can they? Why don't you show us the papers explaining it, then? Where are the scientists who have shown that the genes for nylon consumption were already existent in old bacteria? And why were they not active? Why did they never exhibit this trait before?

The fact is that they CAN'T be explained that way; you simply mumble that they can, in the hopes that no one will call you on your bluff.

[metavac]

The clearest proof yet the retard doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Order and structure? By the void, has he even examined the pure chaos that is creation?

It's probably too generous to read wishful's remarks to mean he's talking about the fine tuning problem in cosmology (the extreme improbability of a low-entropy, inflationary universe responsible for the maximal symmetry we see today arising by random chance), but it's not accurate to describe at least cosmological creation as chaos. That said, the search is on for physical laws to describe even this point in the history of the universe.

[Civil War Man]

Neither of those points to evolution. They can be explained as variation that is already in the gene pool. Do we know if there were bacteria that weren't resistant to the antibiotics that we have? What we have done is eliminate most of the bacteria that isn't resistant, thus leaving the resistant ones behind

That last sentence, the one you just wrote? The bolded one? That is the textbook definition of natural selection, one of the primary driving forces behind evolution. Tattoo that backwards on your ass, so you can read it in the mirror.

We can play semantics here, but that is not a result of evolution.

Put your money where your mouth is. If it is not evolution, show us what it is. And be sure to show your work.

Are you familiar with the Ptolemaic System? This is a classic example that demonstrates the very real possibility that a theory can make accurate predictions, as the Ptolemaic System can do to this day, and still be completely wrong. I submit that this is one reason why evolution is not proven. We simply have not obtained enough evidence to rule out all other possibilities, and we do not have enough evidence to prove evolution to be correct.

So now you are basically reduced to arguing "evolution is wrong because it makes accurate predictions, which other wrong things have done from time to time"?

Well, as for the standard for evidence, I would say the best argument against evolution is you, considering that natural selection typically produces higher forms of life. Of course, you are also a good piece of evidence against creation, at least the kind that involve a competent creator.

This last quote is the closest you have come to admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit. Evolution is a convenient theory. If I were to not believe in a God that created the universe, then I would need an explanation as to how life came about.

Like, say, abiogenesis?

After all, we are here, and there must be a reason for it.

Why must there be a reason? Are you so insecure that you have to create artificial beings to protect you from feeling insignificant next to the vastness of the universe?

I find it very suspicious though that in a universe so devoid of intelligent entities

I want to make the joke, but it's too easy. Ah Hell.

So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure
how amazingly unlikely is your birth
and pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space
'cause there bugger-all down here on Earth!

that such amazing order and structure would come about by complete random chance. Given the odds, would it not be more likely that no life, and especially sentient life would have sprung up completely by chance?

1: Sentient life didn't spring up by chance. It was developed over time. Of course, you are completely incapable of differentiating between the two, which is what makes me think you have some trouble with the sentient life concept.

2: The odds of life (if you view life as a self-replicating molecule) springing up by chance is 1, because the odds of an event that already happened is always 1. The likelihood of such an event doesn't matter. What matters is that it did happen, and experimentation has come up with what are currently the most likely mechanisms that caused that event.

[Adept]

This is a vast simplification. First of all, if evolution is taking place, to the extent that you believe, then the rate of evolution would be affected by the lifespan of the organism in question.

Of course it wouldn't, you blithering idiot. The "rate of evolution" would be affected by the conditions of the organisms in question. Creatures do not choose to evolve because they have nothing better to do, but because necessity to survive is created via their conditions. Conditions affecting a species of fish may not immediately be of consequence to conditions facing a type of deer, thus the "rate" you speak of would not be uniform to every species.

With that in mind, scientists have been studying bacteria for a long time, long enough for any supposed evolutionary changes to happen, and be observed in the laboratory. And yet, there has been no observed evidence of bacteria evolving anything.

You are speaking directly out of your ass again, though perhaps that is the most intelligent bit of you that I'll have the mispleasure of conversing it.

From here:

Evolutionary change continues to this day, and it will proceed so long as life itself exists. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. In the case of HIV, which causes AIDS, significant viral evolution occurs within the course of infection of a single patient, and this rapid evolution enables the virus to evade the immune system. Many agricultural pests have evolved resistance to chemicals that farmers have used for only a few decades. As we work to control diseases and pests, the responsible organisms have been evolving to escape our controls. Moreover, scientists can perform experiments to study evolution in real time, just as experiments are used to observe dynamic processes in physics, chemistry, and other branches of biology. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations.

As you can see, your lie has been detected. Bacterial evolution has been observed frequently, occuring at actually very high speeds for the availiability of different medications.

It absolutely takes faith to believe that evolution is the end all be all explanation for the vast variety of life.

No more faith than it does to "believe" that a tossed ball will fall back down to Earth. Oh right, that isn't faith, it's science. Silly me.

Evolution has not been proven, and you now admit that it has not been observed, since you readily admit it would take hundreds of thousands of years to observe.

What a pitiful attempt at skewing my words. Did it ever occur to you that fossilized remains from longer than hundreds of thousands of years ago have been gathered, analyzed and catalogued? Did it ever occur to you that those are compared to the living, breathing descendants that roam the Earth today? Basically, you're trying to spin my words to make me have said that "Humankind needed to have been studying species for hundreds of thousands of years in order to have the faintest idea about whether evolution occured or not." Like I said, a weak attempt, as archaeological and paleontological sciences work tirelessly (and have succeeded) in giving us a chance to look back.

Therefore, if you want to prove evolution, you must either do it directly by showing that evolution must be the answer, or you must rule out all other answers.

People have showed you that, repeatedly. You have done nothing to offer alternatives. Your "critcisms" are lies and distortions. Grow up.

You can do neither of those. soz It's all good though, cuz I can't do either of them myself. Just admit it. It's silly to carry on as if there is no question as to whether evolution is THE answer.

Blah, blah, blah.

But you're right, something is silly. It's silly that your using this bullshit solipsism against evolution since it's one of the worst things to try it on, based on the concrete evidence present.

I'll tell you what. Provide a viable alternative to evolution and we'll see about my arrogance on whether evolution is "THE" answer.

[metavac]

I suspect wishful chose to make his stand on bacteria do to problems (PDF) with applying species taxonomy in this domain. I'd recommend not wasting much time trying to debate whether it makes sense to talk about speciation resulting from bacterial genetic recombination.

[Superman]

What I want to know is what it would take for wishful to see just how easily his arguments are refuted, and how stupid he looks. I'm starting to wonder if anything short of a time machine headed back to the Jurassic Age would convince this worthless waste of space that he's wrong.

Ah, the arrogance of ignorance...

[rhoenix]

Nah, all this "sciencey" stuff is just liberal athiestic rationalization of why Democrats hate God.

Right, wishful?

If you want to live in a theocracy that bad, move to Iran.

[Superman]

Nah, all this "sciencey" stuff is just liberal athiestic rationalization of why Democrats hate God.

Right, wishful?

If you want to live in a theocracy that bad, move to Iran.

Ah, that's right. They're all a bunch of victims at the hands of a conspiracy led by atheists. Those poor persecuted Christians... I do feel sorry for them in one regard; they are probably made up of the world's stupidest people... especially the protestant fundie variety.

[Edi]

Wishful thinking also seems to be rather bloody ignorant about bacteria and their mechanisms of acquiring resistances, one of which is absorbing foreign DNA through plasmids. When plasmids are not needed, they get ejected because they are energy intensive.

Those are good examples of an organism changing over time (a very short time too) due to environmental pressure or lack thereof, a textbook case of evolution.

[Darth Wong]

Whether wishful realizes it or not, his argument is actually predicated upon the assumption that at the molecular level, the biological reproduction mechanism is perfect. There's no other way to justify his assumption that all genetic information is pre-existing. Not one atom can be out of place, otherwise his argument falls apart because you can have genes that didn't exist before.

[General Zod]

Are you familiar with the Ptolemaic System? This is a classic example that demonstrates the very real possibility that a theory can make accurate predictions, as the Ptolemaic System can do to this day, and still be completely wrong. I submit that this is one reason why evolution is not proven. We simply have not obtained enough evidence to rule out all other possibilities, and we do not have enough evidence to prove evolution to be correct.

Are you saying that Merriam Webster's definition is incorrect? I suggest you provide actual proof that isn't some retardedly cheap appeal to ignorance fallacy.

This last quote is the closest you have come to admitting what I've been trying to get you to admit. Evolution is a convenient theory. If I were to not believe in a God that created the universe, then I would need an explanation as to how life came about. After all, we are here, and there must be a reason for it. I find it very suspicious though that in a universe so devoid of intelligent entities, that such amazing order and structure would come about by complete random chance. Given the odds, would it not be more likely that no life, and especially sentient life would have sprung up completely by chance?

I'll tell you what, let's use your system of "reasoning". Since you don't seem to have the slightest scientific comprehension whatsoever, then you wouldn't have any problems putting, say, the theory of gravity to the test. The Bible says that God will help you when you're in serious peril. Gravity says you will fall if there is nothing supporting your weight. So go jump out of a plane without a parachute, and let's see which one is most likely to occur. If you're wanting to argue that you cannot put God to the test, then I'll help push you out of an airplane so that there's no excuse about it.

[mr friendly guy]

Neither of those points to evolution.

Too bad they do dipshit. You lose.

They can be explained as variation that is already in the gene pool.

Not completely. There are mutations as well.

Do we know if there were bacteria that weren't resistant to the antibiotics that we have?

Yes we do from laboratory experiments.

What we have done is eliminate most of the bacteria that isn't resistant, thus leaving the resistant ones behind

This is exactly what evolution is retard. Change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time.

We can play semantics here, but that is not a result of evolution.

In other words you don't know what evolution is, play the semantic game and then accuse others of doing it. How original.

Again, the dna was dna that was already in existance, and not a case of new dna resulting from a mistake in dna synthesis.

It doesn't need new DNA to evolve. It doesn't need new DNA to evolve. It doesn't need new DNA to evolve. It doesn't need new DNA to evolve.

It only needs a differing frequency of alleles in a population over time for us to say that population is evolving.

This has is simply a trait that dna has. Does any other organism have this trait? Is that how humans came to be? Did the monkeys assimilate the dna of another species and then become humans?

He is talking about bacteria retard. Obvious humans don't have the same abilities as bacteria to assimilate DNA from other bacteria.

Are you familiar with the Ptolemaic System?

Are you familiar with the concept of evidence. Evidently not.

This is a classic example that demonstrates the very real possibility that a theory can make accurate predictions, as the Ptolemaic System can do to this day, and still be completely wrong.

You are the classic example of the inverse relationship between the size of the mouth and the size of the brain.

The Doctor - "Robots of Death".

And WTF are you talking about. The Ptolemaic system was replaced because not all its predictions are accurate.

I submit that this is one reason why evolution is not proven.
We simply have not obtained enough evidence to rule out all other possibilities, and we do not have enough evidence to prove evolution to be correct.

Obviously having observed it isn't enough evidence. No sirre.

Evolution is a convenient theory.

Its a fact with a theory to explain this fact, you stupid retard. Its only been mentioned several times.

If I were to not believe in a God that created the universe, then I would need an explanation as to how life came about.

If evolution is just a theory, then the Bible is definitely just a fairytale. And a boring one at that. Seriously. Entire chapters devoted to genealogy. I bet that would make entertaining reading.

After all, we are here, and there must be a reason for it.

Prove it.

I find it very suspicious though that in a universe so devoid of intelligent entities, that such amazing order and structure would come about by complete random chance.

Devoid of intelligent entities. What the hell are you talking about. Did you forget the 6 billion humans on Earth. And the reason you find is very suspicious is that you are a retard who doesn't understand concepts of logic and evidence. And order and structure didn't come about by random dipshit. They are a consequence of the laws of physics and chemistry.

Given the odds, would it not be more likely that no life, and especially sentient life would have sprung up completely by chance?

Ignoring the fact that life didn't spring up by chance, but as a consequence of the laws of physics and chemistry and the conditions on primitive earth; its hard to answer your question since you don't tell us what those odds are, and how you derive the numbers. But thats ok, its obvious you don't needs things like evidence when making your bullshit claims.