Draco said:
|
Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...
|
Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.
Quote:
|
So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...
|
They have...
Quote:
|
If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...
|
I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight.
Quote:
|
I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...
|
Make a thread about it.
Quote:
|
I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...
|
THEN READ YOU FUCKING FUNK-BUNNY! I will represent the very small amount of evidence I have presented:
Quote:
. . . speciation has been observed. Here are four well-known examples. These do not encompass all or most of the available examples:
Drosophila paulistorum developing hybrid sterility in male offspring
A species of firewood that was formed by doubling the chromosome count from the original stock
The faeroe island house mouse speciated in less than 250 years after being brought to the island by man
Five species of cichlid fish formed after being isolated from the original stock.
|
Quote:
. . .fossilized evidence towards evolution . . .
Archaeopteryx fossils
coelacanth fossils
Fish Fossils
Gish on Precambrian fossils
Hominid Fossils
Horse fossils
Polystrate fossils
punctuated equilibria
trilobites
whale fossils
and oh yes...transitional fossils
|
Quote:
|
Of course the fact that these fossils form a sort of phylogenetic tree . . .
|
Quote:
|
. . .bacteria's increasing resilience to antibiotics is an observation of evolution.
|
Quote:
- Bacteria's resilience to antibiotics
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS
- Mutations in humans confer resistance to heart disease
- mutations in humans makes bones stronger
- Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity
- Ribozymes
- Adaptation to high and low temperatures in E. Coli
- mutation which allows growth in the dark for Chlamydomonas
- mutation which allows yeast to grow in a Low Phosphate Chemostat Environment
- new enzymatic functions by recombination
|
Quote:
|
Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.
|
(Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)
Quote:
You can consider the following "transisional" in the sense that they do not have all the same features and abilities of similar creatures:
- The flying squirrel, which could be on its way to becoming more batlike
- The euglena, which appears well on its way to becoming a plant
- Aquatic snakes
- any animal with an "infrared eye"
- various fish that can survive on land for extended periods of time
|
Quote:
|
Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.
|
Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged.
What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?
Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.
If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically?