Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Miles]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.




Thoughts?

.

[Bust Nak]

Huxley started with a presupposition, which was that evolution is true. Therefore, any paleontolocal (new word) finding would have only lead him to such an interpretation of the data.

That's non starter, evolution is falsifiable. Potentially there are could be findings that lead him to discard evolution, we just couldn't find any.

That is nonsense. I assume you are talking about archaeopteryx, which is no transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. Maybe, just maybe, the archaeopteryx was an ancient bird that had teeth..which would be a confirmation that some ancient birds had teeth, NOT that it evolved from a reptilian predecessor.

You are getting two concepts mixed up, birds having reptilian features is enough to make it a transitional species, regardless of what said birds have evolved into.

Nonsense. You don't start with scales and end up with feathers. It ain't happening. There are just too many bodily differences between reptiles and birds which would make evolution from one to the other biologically impossible...the lungs are different, the hearts are different, the eggs are different.

The whole point of evolution is that we can get different lungs, hearts and eggs from a common ancestor, pointing out that they are different is missing the very point.

All mankind is made up of the same "stuff". Warships and forks are made up of the same metal, but that doesn't prove that they evolved from a tin can. It proves that intelligent designers used the same "stuff" to make different creations.

How does being made of the same metal prove that?

[We_Are_VENOM]

You know, Bust Nak (old friend, old buddy), I predicted that my weighing in on these evolution threads would draw you out...and here you are.

How are ya, buddy?

That's non starter, evolution is falsifiable. Potentially there are could be findings that lead him to discard evolution, we just couldn't find any.

Well, let each man interpret the "data" as he sees fit. I see the same data, and draw a different conclusion.

You are getting two concepts mixed up, birds having reptilian features is enough to make it a transitional species

Sure, according to the evolutionist's presupposition. To someone who isn't buying the crap, I can't even conclusively say that the birds had "reptilian" features and even if they did, that is a far cry from "well, it must be evolution", but more so of "well, must be a common designer".

The whole point of evolution is that we can get different lungs, hearts and eggs from a common ancestor, pointing out that they are different is missing the very point.

I know...so basically, according to the theory; given enough time, practically ANYTHING can happen. I understand that this is your theory (your religion), but I ain't buying it based on the fact that the science doesn't support it.

There are limits as to what can happen in nature, and the idea that a land dwelling ancestor of the modern day whale would have evolved to the point where it was safely able to migrate to the sea is one of those limits.

It ain't happening without divine intervention.

All mankind is made up of the same "stuff". Warships and forks are made up of the same metal, but that doesn't prove that they evolved from a tin can. It proves that intelligent designers used the same "stuff" to make different creations.

How does being made of the same metal prove that?

Um, because it has already been done, obviously. I can make vanilla ice cream, or a vanilla shake...either way, the same ingredients is being used. I can make hash browns or french fries...either way, the same potatoes are being used....and I am the intelligent designer who is using the stuff and creating the product.

The point is, you can't logically use similarities in anatomy and/or genetics and draw the "evolution must be true" conclusion.

It is a non sequitur.

[The Barbarian]

Comes down to evidence. And it's overwhelming that birds evolved from dinosaurs. This was first predicted by Huxley, based on anatomical data.

Huxley started with a presupposition, which was that evolution is true.

No. He started by looking at anatomy of birds and crocodiles, and from the evidence, concluded that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Merely assuming the fact of evolution would not have told him this.

Therefore, any paleontolocal (new word) finding would have only lead him to such an interpretation of the data.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, if dinosaurs had shown a reduction in lower jaw bones, that would have invalidated his prediction. But the fact that after his prediction, feathers, avian respiratory structures, and other "avian" characteristics were found in dinosaurs, confirms his prediction.

So basically; "because fossil X and fossil Y has similar bone structures, therefore, one evolved into the other".

No. That's a creationist misunderstanding. You've confused homology with analogy. This is why it's so important to know at least something about anatomy before you try to tell people about it. So, let's take a look. Analogous structures are those that are "similar." For example, the "carnassal" teeth of marsupial thylacines, and the true carnassal teeth of wolves. They are superficially alike, but arise in different ways. Homologies are structures that are possibly dissimilar, but show the same anatomical orgins, such as the wings of bats and the forelegs of horses.

Analogous structures do not show common ancestry, while homologous organs do.

That is a text book example of a non sequitur...which is why the so called "fossil record" is poor evidence for evolution.

See just below. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the fossil record is "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Only much later did scientists find the transitional species between dinosaurs and birds. But that only part of the confirmation.

That is nonsense.

It's just a fact. Even knowledgeable creationists admit the fact:
Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

He's not the only YE creationist to admit this. Would you like to see others?

I assume you are talking about archaeopteryx, which is no transitional species between dinosaurs and birds

It is transitional in the sense that it's very close to the line that gave rise to birds. But there are many, many transitional fossils in a series as your fellow creationist notes above.

Maybe, just maybe, the archaeopteryx was an ancient bird that had teeth..which would be a confirmation that some ancient birds had teeth, NOT that it evolved from a reptilian predecessor.

No, that won't work for you either. Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. Would you like me to show you that?

We have now found that many "avian" characteristics are really found in dinosaurs, such as pneumatized bones (the formerly thought to be unique "avian" respiratiory system), feathers, etc.

Nonsense.

Nope. Demonstated facts.

You don't start with scales and end up with feathers.

There is abundant evidence for the evolution of feathers from scutes (found on archaesaurs, not all reptiles) but it's a moot point; feathers appeared first on dinosaurs, so how they evolved is not a concern for the evolution of birds.

There are just too many bodily differences between reptiles and birds which would make evolution from one to the other biologically impossible...the lungs are different,

Your assumption is wrong:
Big meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to the setup in today's birds, according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor of Ohio University. The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.

https://www.livescience.com/306-dinosau ... birds.html

There's a lot more evidence for this; if you like, we can spend some time on it.

the hearts are different,

That's now a testible belief:
Yet paleontologists had long thought that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, like reptiles. A reptile's simple heart puts only low amounts of oxygen in its blood -- not the right mix in the recipe of flight.
Modern computerized tomography (CT) scans of dinosaur chest cavities five years ago found the apparent remnants of complex, four-chambered hearts more like mammals and birds.
Earlier this year, rare soft tissue of a T. rex showed its blood vessels were similar to those of an ostrich.
ibid

the eggs are different.

Let's take a look...
The rare discovery of eggs inside a dinosaur has given scientists new clues about the reproductive biology of the creatures and more support for the theory that birds came from dinosaurs.
The pair of shelled eggs is the first of its kind found inside a dinosaur, said researchers who reported the discovery in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Scientists found the dinosaur produced eggs in some ways like a crocodile and in other ways like a bird. Crocodiles and similar primitive reptiles have two ovaries enabling them to lay a clutch of eggs. Birds have a single ovary and can only lay one egg at a time.
The dinosaur's egg-producing capability lay somewhere in between, suggesting a link with the modern bird, researchers said. It could produce more than one egg, but only one from each ovary at a time.
The theory that birds came from dinosaurs has been supported by many researchers, said Tamaki Sato of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa. But this latest research helps advance it, she added, calling it "strong evidence."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7507590

So your assumption is wrong.

Likewise, scienists , looking at the anatomical features of whales, realized that they seem to have evolved from hoofed mammals.

Amazing.

Yep.

Whales don't currently have hoofs,

But some of them did. Would you like to learn about that?

so how in the world are you going to draw the conclusion that a land dwelling hoofed animal is somehow related to a hoofless, sea dwelling animal?

They still have an ungulate digestive system.

Whales are carnivores that feed on small shrimp-like crustaceans. Yet their digestive systems do not resemble those of carnivorous mammals. Surprisingly, their stomachs are most similar to those of cows!

The stomachs of whales are compartmentalized into multiple chambers (or stomachs) like those of ruminants. Biologist and whale expert Pierre-Henry Fontaine explains, “compartments allow them to swallow large quantities of food quickly and without having to chew.”

In cows, these compartments serve to break down the cellulose found in plants in order to digest it. They ruminate their food, which means they digest it a first time, regurgitate it, swallow it again and digest it for good.
https://baleinesendirect.org/en/whale-d ... -ruminate/

This only makes sense in terms of evolution, but is completely incomprehensible to creationists. No way for them to deny the evidence without a specific agenda to push.

Only much later, did scientists find many transitional forms between hoofed mammals and whales. Even more compelling, genetics shows the relationship...

All mankind is made up of the same "stuff".

All living things, are made of the same stuff. But how it's organized in genes is what matters. And we know it works because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

There's a lot more evidence for all this. If you'd like to discuss anything here in detail, let me know.

[benchwarmer]

Well, you just lost your bet. If you walked up to me it would NOT be the first thing I mentioned. You still haven't mentioned it so I assume you are unaware of it or are ignoring it. I'm not doing your homework for you.

It's ok, I don't expect you to admit it.

The first sign of a lost debate. Go after the character of your opponent.

Let me help you out since you can't seem to figure it out or at least won't admit to knowing about it. It's called genetics.

It means exactly what it is observable.

What I observe is; dogs producing dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. I don't see any compelling evidence to suggest that things were any different 100000000000 years ago...and I also don't see any evidence to suggest that things will be any different 100000000000 years from now.

How many times are you going to bring this up? No one is arguing with you. I'm very confused by this constant repetition. The ToE predicts this very thing. So your observation is yet more evidence for evolution. If dogs produced chickens you'd be onto something and have falsifiable evidence that would sink the ToE.

In fact, the whole "timetable" thing is all part of the scam, the con.

If you notice, no matter where you are in history, you will either be told that you missed the changes ("sorry, Charlie, had you'd been here x amount of years ago, you would have seen it"), or you will be told that you have to wait for it ("but hey, if you wait another x amount of years, you will see it").

If you bothered to check the links that have already been posted about evolution observed in the lab, you would see your error. It has nothing to do with time per se, but with number of generations. How many generations of horses can you observe? Now how many generations of bacteria can you observe? Which one is easier to see genetic drift in?

Well, my claim is that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish. That is a claim, isn't it?

Yes.

Lets test this claim; get million different dogs, cats, and fish. And have them mate with their own kind...and based on repeatable observation, we will see dogs producing more dogs, cats producing more cats, etc.

That, my friend, is science. Observation, experiment, and prediction...which is why no one is arguing against microevolution, which is you know, actual science.

Congratulations, you just provided further evidence for evolution. That seems to have back fired.

That's like me saying "Assuming Christianity is a religion, which it isn't". Clearly false.

Yeah, but then I would ask you if you can articulate why Christianity doesn't constitute as a religion and I sincerely doubt you would be able to do that.


However, I can articulate why macroevolution doesn't constitute as "science"...and it looks to me as if I already did.

Really, we must have missed it. By the way, please scientifically define "macroevolution". That should be very telling. The ToE makes no distinction or even defines the term. Are you perhaps debating a strawman?

Please quote the Theory of Evolution and highlight the part that says an observation of a "reptile-bird type of transformation in nature" is required. We'll wait.

First off, if it happened in nature, it can be observed in nature.

Second, I want evidence that such a transformation is even possible, let alone observed. I am under the impression that it isn't even naturally possible for a reptile to evolve into a bird.

And if it isn't possible, it certainly can't be observed.

So here, I am making it even easier for you...just demonstrate the mere possibility of it happening...and I will become an evolutionist.

So you can't do it. As suspected because it's not there.

I can easily demonstrate how a parent lifeform will have a given classification and one of it's ancestors with have an additional classification. It's called "Taxonomy" i.e. the classification and naming of organisms. If we have a lifeform with classification X and someone finds enough differences in an ancestor to add a new classification Y it has happened. It's a human naming convention. It's easier than simply calling everything "life".

Note that the ancestor is still technically an X, but is now also known as a Y. You seem to be hung up on the naming or don't understand how we can figure out ancestry of current living things.

[Bust Nak]

You know, Bust Nak (old friend, old buddy), I predicted that my weighing in on these evolution threads would draw you out...and here you are.

How are ya, buddy?

Great, thanks.

Well, let each man interpret the "data" as he sees fit. I see the same data, and draw a different conclusion.

Sure, but that doesn't change what I said, evolution is falsifiable, regardless of how you personally draw conclusion.

Sure, according to the evolutionist's presupposition. To someone who isn't buying the crap, I can't even conclusively say that the birds had "reptilian" features and even if they did, that is a far cry from "well, it must be evolution", but more so of "well, must be a common designer".

You do you, I am just telling you how the word is used by scientists.

I know...so basically, according to the theory; given enough time, practically ANYTHING can happen.

No, according to the theory (and science in general,) a lot of things cannot happen regardless of how much time you give it, and if somehow such things are discovered, then evolution is disproven. This is called falsification, hence my claim, evolution is falsifiable.

I understand that this is your theory (your religion), but I ain't buying it based on the fact that the science doesn't support it.

There are limits as to what can happen in nature, and the idea that a land dwelling ancestor of the modern day whale would have evolved to the point where it was safely able to migrate to the sea is one of those limits.

It ain't happening without divine intervention.

That's merely your "different conclusion," not a fact.

Um, because it has already been done, obviously. I can make vanilla ice cream, or a vanilla shake...either way, the same ingredients is being used. I can make hash browns or french fries...either way, the same potatoes are being used....and I am the intelligent designer who is using the stuff and creating the product.

That's the point - it's not the fact that ships and forks are made up of steel that proves that intelligent designers made them. Instead it is the fact that we have direct observation that people making things that we came to the conclusion that intelligent designers made them. To borrow your words: You can't logically use similarities in material and draw the "intelligent designers made them" conclusion, it is a non sequitur.

The point is, you can't logically use similarities in anatomy and/or genetics and draw the "evolution must be true" conclusion.

It is a non sequitur.

That's moot since that is not what has happened with evolution, or any other scientific theory. "Evolution must be true" is never part of our claims, nor a conclusion we've drawn.

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. He started by looking at anatomy of birds and crocodiles, and from the evidence, concluded that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Merely assuming the fact of evolution would not have told him this.

Well, we can agree/disagree as to what motivated him to interpret the data the way that he did and focus on the fact that no anatomy comparisons should logically draw anyone to such a conclusion.

When you find a fossil, or if you find any scattered bone fragments that you can piece back together...if you determine anything besides "Hmmm, this once living organism has been dead a longggg time", then you are speculating. You are relying on faith. Anything besides that is just wishful thinking, something you won't have to do if you weren't trying to push an agenda.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, if dinosaurs had shown a reduction in lower jaw bones
, that would have invalidated his prediction.

No, it wouldn't have. It would have just been a newly evolved dino-to-a-bird prototype with a lower jaw bone. Basically, a bird with a lower jaw bone.

But the fact that after his prediction, feathers, avian respiratory structures, and other "avian" characteristics were found in dinosaurs, confirms his prediction.

Sure, the T-Rex had feathers lol. And you are wrong, feathers were not found in dinosaurs...what you think is "feathers" is actually inorganic matter that spread into the surrounding material as the animal decayed under the mud/sand.

Do yourself a favor and watch this video..



It is a video displaying how frost can form (crystalize) on a window. When it does, the matter "spreads" and can resemble wings. That is the same thing that happened with the fossils that were found...depending on how deep it is buried (along with the pressure/temperature)..the dead material, as it decomposes, will be "drawn out" into the surrounding material and can resemble what you will call "wings", when it isn't wings at all.

But as I mentioned before, when you start off with a presupposition, practically anything you find will be shaped/molded to fit the presupposition...and that is exactly what is going on here...as no one who doesn't already believe in evolution would buy such mess.

No. That's a creationist misunderstanding. You've confused homology with analogy. This is why it's so important to know at least something about anatomy before you try to tell people about it. So, let's take a look. Analogous structures are those that are "similar." For example, the "carnassal" teeth of marsupial thylacines, and the true carnassal teeth of wolves. They are superficially alike, but arise in different ways. Homologies are structures that are possibly dissimilar, but show the same anatomical orgins, such as the wings of bats and the forelegs of horses.

Analogous structures do not show common ancestry, while homologous organs do.

Dude, you are splitting hairs. It is irrelevant anyway, because my stance is NO similarities, no matter how small or great, is proof of macroevolution, PERIOD.

See just below. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the fossil record is "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Then I disagree with them too. I disagree with other creationists all the time on many different things, and we can add this one to the long list.

It's just a fact. Even knowledgeable creationists admit the fact:
Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

He's not the only YE creationist to admit this. Would you like to see others?

First off, my stance is against the possibility of evolution WITHOUT divine intervention. If there is a creationist who believes in theistic evolution, I disagree with him although I am willing to compromise with him and the idea that a divine hand was behind it.

Second, ask Dr. Kurt Wise would he still believe in the ToE on naturalism, and he probably wont.

Third, as I stated elsewhere, my beef with theistic evolutionists is more of an "in house" thing..I just simply disagree with them there.

It is transitional in the sense that it's very close to the line that gave rise to birds. But there are many, many transitional fossils in a series as your fellow creationist notes above.

Again, I simply disagree. The so called "fossil record" is the most subjective piece of evidence concerning evolution...as it invovles what one sees with there own two eyeballs.

You see what you believe to be a reptile evolving into a bird (or any so called "transitional fossils"), I just merely see a bird with teeth with no evolving organism whatsoever.

How does what you see have any more virtue than what I see? It doesn't.

It is just fundamental subjectivity...a matter of opinion...no bio-babble needed.

No, that won't work for you either. Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. Would you like me to show you that?

Not needed. I already provided an explanation for the wings...anything else is just a matter of opinion.

There is abundant evidence for the evolution of feathers from scutes (found on archaesaurs, not all reptiles) but it's a moot point; feathers appeared first on dinosaurs, so how they evolved is not a concern for the evolution of birds.

First of all, I don't for one second believe that "feathers first appeared on dinosaurs"...but lets just say, for sake of argument...that dinosaurs had feathers.

Could that not be interpreted as "Long ago, there were dinosaurs which existed that had feathers, and are now long extinct", as opposed to "dinosaurs evolved feathers as they evolved into birds".

Sure, stick a few feathers on the T Rex and push it off a cliff, watch him fly.

Your assumption is wrong:
Big meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to the setup in today's birds, according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor of Ohio University. The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.

https://www.livescience.com/306-dinosau ... birds.html

There's a lot more evidence for this; if you like, we can spend some time on it.

the hearts are different,

That's now a testible belief:
Yet paleontologists had long thought that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, like reptiles. A reptile's simple heart puts only low amounts of oxygen in its blood -- not the right mix in the recipe of flight.
Modern computerized tomography (CT) scans of dinosaur chest cavities five years ago found the apparent remnants of complex, four-chambered hearts more like mammals and birds.
Earlier this year, rare soft tissue of a T. rex showed its blood vessels were similar to those of an ostrich.
ibid

the eggs are different.

Let's take a look...
The rare discovery of eggs inside a dinosaur has given scientists new clues about the reproductive biology of the creatures and more support for the theory that birds came from dinosaurs.
The pair of shelled eggs is the first of its kind found inside a dinosaur, said researchers who reported the discovery in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
Scientists found the dinosaur produced eggs in some ways like a crocodile and in other ways like a bird. Crocodiles and similar primitive reptiles have two ovaries enabling them to lay a clutch of eggs. Birds have a single ovary and can only lay one egg at a time.
The dinosaur's egg-producing capability lay somewhere in between, suggesting a link with the modern bird, researchers said. It could produce more than one egg, but only one from each ovary at a time.
The theory that birds came from dinosaurs has been supported by many researchers, said Tamaki Sato of the Canadian Museum of Nature in Ottawa. But this latest research helps advance it, she added, calling it "strong evidence."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7507590

So your assumption is wrong.

So, a quick Google search (as I quite figured would) had me stumble across this website...apparently there is an entire movement against this idea that birds are descendants of reptiles. Your entire rebuttal about the anatomy of reptiles/birds in comparison seems to contradict..

"Some ornithologists and paleontologists argue that theropods cannot be ancestral to birds because they do not conform, in anatomy or lifestyle, to the true bird ancestor as imagined by these researchers."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/te ... -movement/

Now, the article dismisses the "birds are not dinosaurs" (BAND) movement as "naive", but it acknowledges that not all scientists buy in to the accepted hypothesis...and it also (as stated above) have those same scientists contradicting everything you said about the anatomy in question.

Of course, these BAND scientists that are going against "mainstream science" are the minority, which is why you won't find their work in mainstream science, because if you are not part of the "game", you don't get to play.

But some of them did.

Sure, according to the theory.

Whales are carnivores that feed on small shrimp-like crustaceans. Yet their digestive systems do not resemble those of carnivorous mammals. Surprisingly, their stomachs are most similar to those of cows!

The stomachs of whales are compartmentalized into multiple chambers (or stomachs) like those of ruminants. Biologist and whale expert Pierre-Henry Fontaine explains, “compartments allow them to swallow large quantities of food quickly and without having to chew.”

Obviously, their digestive systems cant be too similar if one is a carnivore and the other is a herbivore. If you want to impress me, then feed cows shrimp, and whales grass...and see if this "similar" digestive system is up to the task.

Second, "their digestive systems are similar, therefore, evolution".

Non sequitur.

In cows, these compartments serve to break down the cellulose found in plants in order to digest it. They ruminate their food, which means they digest it a first time, regurgitate it, swallow it again and digest it for good.[/color]
https://baleinesendirect.org/en/whale-d ... -ruminate/

This only makes sense in terms of evolution, but is completely incomprehensible to creationists. No way for them to deny the evidence without a specific agenda to push.

Its funny, because you mention the fact that cows and whales have similar digestive system by also mentioning the fact that cows regurgitate their food (which is part of the cow digestive system), but this regurgitation process is something that whales DO NOT DO.

So why even mention it. I guess as a filler, apparently.

All living things, are made of the same stuff. But how it's organized in genes is what matters. And we know it works because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

There's a lot more evidence for all this. If you'd like to discuss anything here in detail, let me know.

Indeed, I said all mankind, but I meant all living things are made up of the same stuff. Common designer.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sure, but that doesn't change what I said, evolution is falsifiable, regardless of how you personally draw conclusion.

First off, I never said nor implied otherwise. Second, I actually agree with you. Third, I agree with you to the extent that I spend a lot of my time on here falsifying it.

You do you, I am just telling you how the word is used by scientists.

Thanks, but it wasn't needed.

No, according to the theory (and science in general,) a lot of things cannot happen regardless of how much time you give it, and if somehow such things are discovered, then evolution is disproven. This is called falsification, hence my claim, evolution is falsifiable.

I agree, evolution is so falsifiable, that I falsified it.

That's merely your "different conclusion," not a fact.

Funny, because I was going to tell you the same thing regarding your position. In fact, I am.

That's the point - it's not the fact that ships and forks are made up of steel that proves that intelligent designers made them. Instead it is the fact that we have direct observation that people making things that we came to the conclusion that intelligent designers made them.

To borrow your words: You can't logically use similarities in material and draw the "intelligent designers made them" conclusion, it is a non sequitur.

True, but there is more too it than that. I draw the "intelligent designers made them" (species) conclusion based on the solid background information/evidence as it pertains to the truth value of intelligent design...so under that framework, I used an analogy which supports this thesis as it relates to things that we observe in nature...which is mankind using their intelligence to create things using the same material.

In other words, intelligent designers use the same material to create many different things all the time, and since there is (imo) evidence for an supreme intelligent designer, then I conclude that this intelligent designer also used the same material to create many different things.

That's moot since that is not what has happened with evolution, or any other scientific theory. "Evolution must be true" is never part of our claims, nor a conclusion we've drawn.

It may not be part of your "claims", but it if you are a naturalist, then it is part of your implications. If God doesn't exist, then what else do you have besides evolution?? Nothing.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #167]

And you are wrong, feathers were not found in dinosaurs...what you think is "feathers" is actually inorganic matter that spread into the surrounding material as the animal decayed under the mud/sand.

Do yourself a favor and watch this video.

Are you serious with this comment? The frost forming analogy is not even close to explaining the evidence for dinosaurs with feathers. Do yourself a favor and look at this list and the associated links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... f_feathers

[The Barbarian]

No. He started by looking at anatomy of birds and crocodiles, and from the evidence, concluded that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Merely assuming the fact of evolution would not have told him this.

Well, we can agree/disagree as to what motivated him to interpret the data the way that he did and focus on the fact that no anatomy comparisons should logically draw anyone to such a conclusion.

As you learned, just accepting the fact of evolution would not have helped him with that prediction. Nor would his acceptance of evolution cause there to be what your fellow creationists admit to be "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Not only did subsequent evidence confirm Huxley's prediction, even more convincing, there are no transitional forms where they shouldn't be. No dinosaurs with simplified jaw joints. No dinosaurs with two or three-chambered hearts.

When you find a fossil, or if you find any scattered bone fragments that you can piece back together...if you determine anything besides "Hmmm, this once living organism has been dead a longggg time", then you are speculating.

Nope. For example, by examining the oxygen isotope ratios in the bones of early cetaceans, we can tell if they lived in fresh, brackish, or salt water. By looking at the bones of dinosaurs we can tell whether their respiratory systems were like ours or like that of birds. By looking at the feathers of various feathered dinosaurs/birds, you can tell whether or not the could fly. Lots of other things. You've been badly misled there. Instead of learning about these facts, you are relying on faith and wishful thinking, something you wouldn't have to do if you weren't trying to push an agenda.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, if dinosaurs had shown a reduction in lower jaw bones
, that would have invalidated his prediction.

No, it wouldn't have.

Yes, it would have. Because birds, like dinosaurs have complex lower jaws. If dinosaurs had simplified jaws, they couldn't be ancestral to birds.

But the fact that after Huxley's prediction, feathers, avian respiratory structures, and other "avian" characteristics were found in dinosaurs, confirms his prediction.

Sure, the T-Rex had feathers lol.

Smaller members of the family are known to have them.
Feathered tyrannosaur with short, thin featherlike fibers on body. Relatively long arms with three-fingered hands

A relative of T. rex sporting feathers might seem surprising, but scientists actually expected to find a feathered tyrannosaur one day. Tyrannosaurs are classified as advanced theropods (theropods are two-legged, meat-eating dinosaurs). Scientists have found simple feathers on a wide range of advanced theropods, suggesting that feathers were present throughout the entire group.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosa ... red-tyrant

And you are wrong, feathers were not found in dinosaurs...what you think is "feathers" is actually inorganic matter that spread into the surrounding material as the animal decayed under the mud/sand.

Sorry, that excuse won't fly. There are abundant fossils of dinosaurs with detailed feathers. Even many creationists now admit the fact:
Changyuraptor had impressive quill-like feathers attached to the lower portion of its hind legs. The same can be said for other animals in the fossil record, such as Archaeopteryx, other small extinct animals like Anchiornis huxleyi and Microraptor gui, and some Cretaceous “four-winged” birds.
https://answersingenesis.org/extinct-an ... nists-say/

Do yourself a favor and watch this video..

Sorry, I've found that You Tube videos aren't very reliable. If you found anything you think is convincing in it, tell us about it, and we'll talk about it.

Your presuppostions about evolution might be very important to you, but when you start off with a presupposition, practically anything you find will be shaped/molded to fit the presupposition...and that is exactly what is going on here...as no one who isn't already a creationist would buy such mess.

No. That's a creationist misunderstanding. You've confused homology with analogy. This is why it's so important to know at least something about anatomy before you try to tell people about it. So, let's take a look. Analogous structures are those that are "similar." For example, the "carnassal" teeth of marsupial thylacines, and the true carnassal teeth of wolves. They are superficially alike, but arise in different ways. Homologies are structures that are possibly dissimilar, but show the same anatomical orgins, such as the wings of bats and the forelegs of horses.

Analogous structures do not show common ancestry, while homologous organs do.

Dude, you are splitting hairs.

It's a big deal. As you now realize "looks like" isn't the way scientists determine relationships.

It is irrelevant anyway, because my stance is NO similarities

The interesting thing about reality is, it doesn't care what you think of it.

See just below. Even knowledgeable YE creationists admit that the fossil record is "surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

Then I disagree with them too.

Doesn't matter. Dr. Wise actually knows about the evidence. Did it make him accept evolution? No. He's an honest creationist; he acknowledges that there is very good evidence for it, but he says he prefers his interpretation of the Bible.

Dr. Wise knows what he's talking about. And well, you know...

It's just a fact. Even knowledgeable creationists admit the fact:
Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
YE Creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

He's not the only YE creationist to admit this. Would you like to see others? [/quote]

First off, my stance is against the possibility of evolution WITHOUT divine intervention.

God isn't obligated to do it your way. Sorry.

Second, ask Dr. Kurt Wise would he still believe in the ToE on naturalism,

You still don't get it. Dr. Wise admits there is strong evidence for evolution,even though he believes in his interpretation of the Bible.

Archaeopteryx is transitional in the sense that it's very close to the line that gave rise to birds. But there are many, many transitional fossils in a series as your fellow creationist notes above.

Again, I simply disagree.

Doesn't matter. Simple denial doesn't mean anything.

The so called "fossil record" is the most subjective piece of evidence concerning evolution.

As you see, even knowledgeable creationists know better.

How does what you see have any more virtue than what I see?

Dr. Wise explains how.

Archaeopteryx has more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones. Would you like me to show you that?

Not needed.

If you flee from facts, that's kind of an epiphany for you, isn't it?

There is abundant evidence for the evolution of feathers from scutes (found on archaesaurs, not all reptiles) but it's a moot point; feathers appeared first on dinosaurs, so how they evolved is not a concern for the evolution of birds.

First of all, I don't for one second believe that "feathers first appeared on dinosaurs"

Doesn't matter; even many creationists admit the fact. No point in denial.

.but lets just say, for sake of argument...that dinosaurs had feathers.

Could that not be interpreted as "Long ago, there were dinosaurs which existed that had feathers, and are now long extinct", as opposed to "dinosaurs evolved feathers as they evolved into birds".

You'd also have to explain why they share a respiratory system, a 4-chambered heart, feathers, a fircula (wishbone), and many, many other features. All of these confirm Huxley's prediction, which was based on other anatomical data.



Sure, stick a few feathers on the T Rex and push it off a cliff, watch him fly.

Your assumption about dinosaur respiration is wrong:
Big meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to the setup in today's birds, according to an investigation led by Patrick O'Connor of Ohio University. The lungs of theropod dinosaurs -- carnivores that walked on two legs and had bird-like feet -- likely pumped air into hollow sacs in their skeletons, as is the case in birds.
https://www.livescience.com/306-dinosau ... birds.html

There's a lot more evidence for this; if you like, we can spend some time on it.

the hearts are different,

That's now a testible belief:
Yet paleontologists had long thought that dinosaurs were cold-blooded, like reptiles. A reptile's simple heart puts only low amounts of oxygen in its blood -- not the right mix in the recipe of flight.
Modern computerized tomography (CT) scans of dinosaur chest cavities five years ago found the apparent remnants of complex, four-chambered hearts more like mammals and birds.
Earlier this year, rare soft tissue of a T. rex showed its blood vessels were similar to those of an ostrich.
ibid

Notice that you were wrong again and again about dinosaurs having "avian" features. Because you don't want to believe evolution, your presuppostions forced to assume all sorts of incorrect ideas.

Now, the article dismisses the "birds are not dinosaurs" (BAND) movement as "naive", but it acknowledges that not all scientists buy in to the accepted hypothesis...and it also (as stated above) have those same scientists contradicting everything you said about the anatomy in question.

Nope. For example, one of them, Alan Feduccia, acknowledges the homologies in birds and dinosaurs, but argues that birds did not evolved from dinosaurs. He thinks that birds and dinosaurs both evolved from thecodons (primitive archosaurs). Most paleontologists don't think so, for a number of reasons we can discuss if you like.

Of course, these BAND scientists that are going against "mainstream science" are the minority, which is why you won't find their work in mainstream science,

Nonsense. Fedducia is a well-regarded ornithologist, whose work is widely respected. I know the stories those websites peddle, but they are false.

Whales are carnivores that feed on small shrimp-like crustaceans. Yet their digestive systems do not resemble those of carnivorous mammals. Surprisingly, their stomachs are most similar to those of cows!

The stomachs of whales are compartmentalized into multiple chambers (or stomachs) like those of ruminants. Biologist and whale expert Pierre-Henry Fontaine explains, “compartments allow them to swallow large quantities of food quickly and without having to chew.”

Obviously, their digestive systems cant be too similar if one is a carnivore and the other is a herbivore. If you want to impress me, then feed cows shrimp, and whales grass...and see if this "similar" digestive system is up to the task.

As you learned, whales have ungulate digestive systems, but the bacteria in them are changed slighty to digest chitin instead of cellulose.

Second, "their digestive systems are similar, therefore, evolution".

No. They are homologous. Same structures, different in appearance, function a little different, but anatomically the same.

This only makes sense in terms of evolution, but is completely incomprehensible to creationists. No way for them to deny the evidence without a specific agenda to push.

Its funny, because you mention the fact that cows and whales have similar digestive system

Homologous. They differ in many respects, but they are structurally homologous with ungulate systems.

by also mentioning the fact that cows regurgitate their food (which is part of the cow digestive system), but this regurgitation process is something that whales DO NOT DO.

Yep, same organ, but different function. Homology.

(the "all things are the same" dodge)

All living things, are made of the same stuff. But how it's organized in genes is what matters. And we know it works because we can test it on organisms of known descent.

There's a lot more evidence for all this. If you'd like to discuss anything here in detail, let me know.

Indeed, I said all mankind, but I meant all living things are made up of the same stuff. Common designer.

That won't work either. What kind of a designer would make something deliberately broken, like the human vitamin C gene? You're being highly disrespectful to God, assuming He is a mere designer. He is the Creator, and being omnipotent and eternal, never has to figure anything out.

[Bust Nak]

First off, I never said nor implied otherwise.

You said Huxley would be able to fit any findings into evolution, what is that if not an implication that evolution is unfalsifiable?

Thanks, but it wasn't needed.

Not needed or not wanted? "Archaeopteryx, which is no transitional species" indicated that you did not know that ancient birds with teeth is good enough to qualify as a transitional species according to science.

Funny, because I was going to tell you the same thing regarding your position. In fact, I am.

Well have you any empirical evidence to demonstrate this claim of yours?

In other words, intelligent designers use the same material to create many different things all the time, and since there is (imo) evidence for an supreme intelligent designer, then I conclude that this intelligent designer also used the same material to create many different things.

Intelligence to create things using different material all the time too, you simply can't draw a conclusion one way or the other for an intelligent designer from the premise of "same material."

It may not be part of your "claims", but it if you are a naturalist, then it is part of your implications. If God doesn't exist, then what else do you have besides evolution?? Nothing.

Nothing is fine, naturalists are comfortable with the answer: we don't know. More to the point, what are you arguing against, if not a strawman, if you accept that a) it might not be part of our claims? b) not caught anyone saying evolution MUST be true?