[Frooxius]

@Maravilla: I already addressed that in my post, please read it more carefully.

But briefly: My position is supported with large amount of evidence, you can't just dismiss that for no reason (I say there is evidence, because these is, if you have any arguments against the evidence presented, please show it). What do you have to support yours?

You said you haven't studied evolution, yet you make claims about it, which are just wrong and show lack of understanding even of the basics of the theory.

There's no reputable scientific source that would say this evidence is invalid, but just in case: Can you provide sources and reasons why is the evidence we have invalid?

According to evolution if you leave anything long enough it'll evolve to it's needs, that's ridiculous.

That's not what the theory of evolution says. Theory of evolution explains the diversity of species and how natural selection (fitness "criteria" imposed by the environment) causes organisms to slowly change over the time, by non-randomly selecting from a pool of random variations.

Really, if you're going to argue against something, please try to actually learn what it says first from a proper source (or rather, multiple sources) and argue against that, otherwise you're just falling back to the strawman fallacy, by attacking some distorted, caricature version of it.

Grab a biology textbook, watch some lectures and actually learn about it, otherwise it's just like arguing that computers don't work, because throwing a bunch of rocks together and adding fuel doesn't make a robot.

If you're not going to bother to learn about it, at least look at this very short explanation if not anything else:

[Maravilla]

1) The fossil record:
The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and the link from man to ape is missing in the fossil record.
2) DNA:
There is a very big difference between a chimpanzee's DNA and a humans DNA. They both have different intelligence and different anatomies
3) Happening Today:
If evolution were an actual procedure, then we should see it happening today. But we don't.
4) The Chromosome Count Proves Evolution Is Wrong
There is no evidence - scientific - that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Each species has a fixed chromosome count. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. For example, if an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, then it could not successfully mate with a female. So it could not be passed along to the next generation. To conclude, evolving a new species is scientifically and physically impossible.

[Maravilla]

1) The fossil record:
The fossil record shows species appearing suddenly and the link from man to ape is missing in the fossil record.
2) DNA:
There is a very big difference between a chimpanzee's DNA and a humans DNA. They both have different intelligence and different anatomies
3) Happening Today:
If evolution were an actual procedure, then we should see it happening today. But we don't.
4) The Chromosome Count Proves Evolution Is Wrong
There is no evidence - scientific - that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. Each species has a fixed chromosome count. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. For example, if an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, then it could not successfully mate with a female. So it could not be passed along to the next generation. To conclude, evolving a new species is scientifically and physically impossible.

[Maravilla]

Now I'm not saying biology is all a lie, that's entirely different, of course it's real, I'm just debating and giving proof of how human evolution is false.

[Maravilla]

Now I'm not saying biology is all a lie, that's entirely different, of course it's real, I'm just debating and giving proof of how human evolution is false.

[Frooxius]

@Maravilla: Are you even listening to what I'm saying? I already refuted some of these in my post.

1) Untrue. We found out fossils that show gradual transitions in several species and by dating them (using several methods) we found their age. The older the fossil is, the more it differs from human skeletons, showing the change over time. Here's a nice compilation with sources for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

2) Yes, there are large differences, although about 98 % is the same. I already told you, that's what evolution actually says: The genomes start diverging as the species continue to evolve in various ways.

It's as stupid as saying "Computers don't work, because they have a CPU which processes large amount of instructions and a memory which stores data".

Genome diversification is one of the key mechanisms of evolution, so the fact that we found that human and chimpanzee DNA are different is only proof for evolution, because that's what it says.

3) Untrue, we do.
I already gave you the Russian Silver Fox experiment (which is my favorite), which saw very significant changes in just a few generations and the current generation of foxes looks and behaves very differently from the original one.

There's much more, for example various bacteria straits are becoming immune to antibiotics so we have to develop a new ones. The old ones simply stop working. There's for example the long term evolution experiment with Escheria coli and much more if you do a little research.

There's even example in larger animals. The evolution is usually slow, which means that it's difficult to observe for larger species, because it takes at least hundreds of years for changes to accumulate. But read this (there are sources at the bottom):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...112433.htm

A species of lizard that was introduced to a new environment evolved rapidly during 36 years or so, their body changed, digestive tract changed significantly , their diet changed significantly as well: they even developed new traits!

Plus, like I already said, the evolution mechanism is used computer science as well, which allows us to simulate thousands of generations in a blink of an eye. I already provided you with several examples of evolutionary programming, including the famous Karl Sims experiment.

Genetic programming is used in large set of areas of computer science, here you can find a list of some. All these areas are based on the fact that evolution works. You can even try it out yourself on your own computer, because it works ;-)

4) Completely false. I already provided you with one scientific source and here are some more:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1663.full
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/6/1036.full

It only proves that evolution is right, because evolution predicted we should find a fusion region - and we did, as evidenced above.

To put it simply, we found in chimps something like:
Chromosome 2: [<Start>1111<Center>1111<End>]
Chromosome 3: [<Start>2222<Center>2222<End>]
And in humans (the genes in the chromosomes 2 and 3 of chimps are nearly identical to the genes in chromosome 2 of humans):
Chromosome 2: [<Start>1111<Center>1111<End><Start>2222<Center>2222<End>]

The "<End><Start>" bit is the fusion region. Now why would there be "start" and "end" segment in the middle and also two centers and the both parts had nearly identical contents to two separate chromosomes in chimps, unless they fused? ;-)

Also we're talking about fusion, meaning two chromosomes merged into one. None of them was lost, so the genes they carry weren't lost either.

Chromosome count obviously can and does change. Here's another scientific source/study that discovered the mechanisms of how can chromosome count change:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...071411.php
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1002190

5) If you actually study biology (I do actually myself), you'll find that evolution is a central part of it and supported by massive amount of evidence.

The fact that you don't bother to find any scientific studies doesn't mean they don't exist, because they do as I've demonstrated.

If you want to argue against something, please at least get the facts first and do some research about what you're arguing against. Not having any information and only using misconceptions or just blatant lies (not intentional) is not a way to defend any intellectual position.

You obviously know almost nothing about how evolution works and what evidence do we have to think it's true: So please, I encourage you (and everyone else), try to do some actual research and studying if you're going to argue against it (or even if you actually want to learn more about the world).

[Frooxius]

@Maravilla: Are you even listening to what I'm saying? I already refuted some of these in my post.

1) Untrue. We found out fossils that show gradual transitions in several species and by dating them (using several methods) we found their age. The older the fossil is, the more it differs from human skeletons, showing the change over time. Here's a nice compilation with sources for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html

2) Yes, there are large differences, although about 98 % is the same. I already told you, that's what evolution actually says: The genomes start diverging as the species continue to evolve in various ways.

It's as stupid as saying "Computers don't work, because they have a CPU which processes large amount of instructions and a memory which stores data".

Genome diversification is one of the key mechanisms of evolution, so the fact that we found that human and chimpanzee DNA are different is only proof for evolution, because that's what it says.

3) Untrue, we do.
I already gave you the Russian Silver Fox experiment (which is my favorite), which saw very significant changes in just a few generations and the current generation of foxes looks and behaves very differently from the original one.

There's much more, for example various bacteria straits are becoming immune to antibiotics so we have to develop a new ones. The old ones simply stop working. There's for example the long term evolution experiment with Escheria coli and much more if you do a little research.

There's even example in larger animals. The evolution is usually slow, which means that it's difficult to observe for larger species, because it takes at least hundreds of years for changes to accumulate. But read this (there are sources at the bottom):
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...112433.htm

A species of lizard that was introduced to a new environment evolved rapidly during 36 years or so, their body changed, digestive tract changed significantly , their diet changed significantly as well: they even developed new traits!

Plus, like I already said, the evolution mechanism is used computer science as well, which allows us to simulate thousands of generations in a blink of an eye. I already provided you with several examples of evolutionary programming, including the famous Karl Sims experiment.

Genetic programming is used in large set of areas of computer science, here you can find a list of some. All these areas are based on the fact that evolution works. You can even try it out yourself on your own computer, because it works ;-)

4) Completely false. I already provided you with one scientific source and here are some more:
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1663.full
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/12/11/1651.full
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/22/6/1036.full

It only proves that evolution is right, because evolution predicted we should find a fusion region - and we did, as evidenced above.

To put it simply, we found in chimps something like:
Chromosome 2: [<Start>1111<Center>1111<End>]
Chromosome 3: [<Start>2222<Center>2222<End>]
And in humans (the genes in the chromosomes 2 and 3 of chimps are nearly identical to the genes in chromosome 2 of humans):
Chromosome 2: [<Start>1111<Center>1111<End><Start>2222<Center>2222<End>]

The "<End><Start>" bit is the fusion region. Now why would there be "start" and "end" segment in the middle and also two centers and the both parts had nearly identical contents to two separate chromosomes in chimps, unless they fused? ;-)

Also we're talking about fusion, meaning two chromosomes merged into one. None of them was lost, so the genes they carry weren't lost either.

Chromosome count obviously can and does change. Here's another scientific source/study that discovered the mechanisms of how can chromosome count change:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2...071411.php
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1002190

5) If you actually study biology (I do actually myself), you'll find that evolution is a central part of it and supported by massive amount of evidence.

The fact that you don't bother to find any scientific studies doesn't mean they don't exist, because they do as I've demonstrated.

If you want to argue against something, please at least get the facts first and do some research about what you're arguing against. Not having any information and only using misconceptions or just blatant lies (not intentional) is not a way to defend any intellectual position.

You obviously know almost nothing about how evolution works and what evidence do we have to think it's true: So please, I encourage you (and everyone else), try to do some actual research and studying if you're going to argue against it (or even if you actually want to learn more about the world).

[Maravilla]

Wrong Again.
1. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
2. It has been proven for us to have similar DNA but the genome cannot hold both types, you're talking theories now.

3. Let me clarify your farm fox assumptions, you seem to not know that we believe in microevolution, which results in very small changes, you're trying to pass this as macroevolution, which is silly and I've stated why. For example a dog can become smaller or larger, but it can never become a cat, case closed. Let me know when these foxes become goats or something.
I could easily link you to where all your "theories" have been refuted but you probably have read them by now, it's simple, this debate can go on ( and has ) forever, but I believe the salient point on this thread is that while science has tried and tried for years to disprove intelligent design, with time, money, and a billion experiments, it will never be able to prove otherwise since time and again it has been proven that science has no clue how we got here, only hypothesis, which I have already refuted countless times, a dog can never become a cat, or a fish, (that's funny how you guys believe that it can), we are what we are. As I posted before:
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales do come in many forms!

[Maravilla]

Wrong Again.
1. What evolutionists claim to be transitional forms all have fully functional parts. A true transitional form would have non-functioning parts or appendages, such as the nub of a leg or wing.
2. It has been proven for us to have similar DNA but the genome cannot hold both types, you're talking theories now.

3. Let me clarify your farm fox assumptions, you seem to not know that we believe in microevolution, which results in very small changes, you're trying to pass this as macroevolution, which is silly and I've stated why. For example a dog can become smaller or larger, but it can never become a cat, case closed. Let me know when these foxes become goats or something.
I could easily link you to where all your "theories" have been refuted but you probably have read them by now, it's simple, this debate can go on ( and has ) forever, but I believe the salient point on this thread is that while science has tried and tried for years to disprove intelligent design, with time, money, and a billion experiments, it will never be able to prove otherwise since time and again it has been proven that science has no clue how we got here, only hypothesis, which I have already refuted countless times, a dog can never become a cat, or a fish, (that's funny how you guys believe that it can), we are what we are. As I posted before:
If a fair maiden kisses a frog which instantly changes into a handsome prince, we would call it a fairy tale. But if the frog takes 40 million years to turn into a prince, we call it evolution. Time is the evolutionist's magic wand. Fairy tales do come in many forms!

[Frooxius]

@Maravilla: You are wrong, I have provided you with several scientific sources and studies that prove that the theory of evolution is true. You don't get to ignore all these just so you can insist that it's wrong, that's very intellectually dishonest thing to do. Not to mention that you haven't provided any sources at all, even though explicitly I asked you to support a claim.

1) Again, can you please actually learn anything about how evolution works and what it says?

This is another of the very common misconceptions about evolution. Every organism has fully functional parts, there are no "half legs" or "half wings", that is complete nonsense and theory of evolution doesn't say any of that. At each point the developing traits of the organism serve some function.

2) You're talking nonsense. As I've said, genome diversification and speciation is one of the mechanisms of evolution and thus saying it disproves it is one of the most stupid things you can say.

Just like saying "Computers don't work, because they're following their programming and performing millions of calculations per second". Humans and chimps have different genomes, but very large portion is similar, since we share relatively early common ancestor.

3) They are not assumptions, they are proper scientific studies. The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time, as the changes accumulate.

You're yet again using the strawman logical fallacy: Evolution doesn't say anything about dogs becoming cats or foxes becoming goats. Large changes in the species take a lot of time (hundreds of thousands of years) for the mutations to accumulate.

And more importantly I gave you an example of one species of lizard changing significantly, which you conveniently ignored.

Also examples from computer science, which actually allows us to simulate thousands of generations and show that very large changes occur over enough generations. Which you also conveniently ignored.

And you also ignore the most important piece of evidence: DNA evidence, which shows us the ancestral tree of various organisms of species.

What's important is that all this evidence from various areas, obtained by variety of methods converges on the same answers and points to the same result.

There is no reputable scientific source that would refute all this evidence, just a bunch of people twisting and misinterpreting it (or simply ignoring the convenient bits) and act like they "refuted it". Where are their peer reviewed studies?

And don't give me the "I could point you somewhere where they refuted all this". That's not a way to argue something. Addressing the actual claims is.

---

I already explained to you that evolution doesn't say anything about dog becoming cat or a fish, so why are you stating that it's funny that "you guys" believe that? I already told you, we don't. So you're either purposefully ignoring anything that's inconvenient to your "argument" or you don't/can't read properly.

---

About the frog... These are not even your own words. I've heard that before and it's quite ridiculous and doesn't really represent the claims of evolution. Yes, things take time to change (it also takes time to develop a piece of software, for crops to grow, for person to grow up and such, some processes in the world just take a lot of time, some do more than others), but trying to make it sound ridiculous (while ignoring or not properly addressing the actual evidence presented) is not a proper argument.

---

About science disproving intelligent design. Again, I already told you, science doesn't work like that. If you want to argue about something intelligently, please stop ignoring the points that don't suit you.

Science doesn't disprove things like that. You need to prove that your claim is true. There's no default claim that wins by default, so even if evolution was untrue (or if we didn't have any evidence for it), you would still have to provide evidence to support intelligent design.

And there is no solid, peer reviewed (by a reputable source, not one of those creationist "peer review" groups, which aren't a reputable source, since no reputable scientists publish in them) evidence to support intelligent design.

Science doesn't have to disprove it. You have to prove that it's right.

---

You've demonstrated a lot of serious misconceptions about evolution and I have an inkling that you're just copying them from somewhere, since these were repeated again and again and were shown to be very wrong by various biologists and other advocates of science so often, it's striking that people still use them.

I already asked you to actually get the facts straight first and find what the theory of evolution really says, but all you do is attacking and arguing against distorted, caricatured and completely misinterpreted "version" of it.

If you want to have an intellectual debate and disagree with something, you don't get to ignore the inconvenient bits and most importantly, you should actually learn what you are arguing against first to not look ignorant and attacking a strawman, instead of the actual point.

Are you actually interested in finding out the truth and learning about something or just putting fingers in your ears and going "la la la" whenever you hear something you don't like and then just stating your "arguments" regardless of what the other person said?