"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

robindch wrote: »

When you've been caught lying about somebody, the done thing is to apologize -- I'm sure that most, and probably all, people here will accept an apology.

I have absolutely nothing to apologise for ... I quoted Prof Dawkins exactly ... and I made fair comments based on the quote.

... anyway ... where is all this evidence for evolution ... any chance you could 'step up to the plate' ... and provide some, Robin???

robindch

J C wrote: »

I made fair comments based on the quote.

I think you know quite well you didn't, so please don't compound a first deceit with a second. Nobody -- except you, possibly -- is fooled.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I think you know quite well you didn't, so please don't compound a first deceit with a second. Nobody -- except you, possibly -- is fooled.

... come on Robin, and stop stalling ... either provide the evidence for Evolution ... or just admit it doesn't exist!!!

robindch

J C wrote: »

either provide the evidence for Evolution

I've done that before and you've ignored it -- why should I waste time doing it now?

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

provide the evidence for Evolution ... or just admit it doesn't exist!!!

What's wrong with the evidence in any of these videos?

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87

Notice some of them have been given to you before & you refused to
respond. Maybe, just like your reading of Dawkins, because you didn't
acknowledge evidence was presented that means none actually was :pac:

J C

robindch wrote: »

I've done that before and you've ignored it -- why should I waste time doing it now?

Where did you provide this evidence ... link please???

J C

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What's wrong with the evidence in any of these videos?

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=F626DD5B2C1F0A87

Notice some of them have been given to you before & you refused to
respond. Maybe, just like your reading of Dawkins, because you didn't
acknowledge evidence was presented that means none actually was :pac:

I looked at the first video ... and it was clocks ... and more clocks ... sound more like physics ... than biology!!!:(

sponsoredwalk

J C wrote: »

I looked at the first video ... and it was clocks ... and more clocks ... sound more like physics ... than biology!!!:(

Why don't you watch "Evidence for evolution, Part I", "Evidence for evolution, Part II" & "Evidence for evolution, Part III".

robindch

J C wrote: »

Where did you provide this evidence

Try the other thread -- there are thousands of informative posts in there. Have you forgotten them already?

Or -- just throwing out an idea here -- you could pull down one of those Dawkins books that you claim to own and, you know, read it?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... ... but never any evidence for Evolution!!!:eek:

Really? None at all?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Try the other thread -- there are thousands of informative posts in there. Have you forgotten them already?

... plenty of evidence there for Creation ... but no evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution ... although a few Theistic Evolutionists did say that 'God did it' ... but didn't provide any evidence for that either!!!;)

robindch wrote: »

Or -- just throwing out an idea here -- you could pull down one of those Dawkins books that you claim to own and, you know, read it?

What are the chances???
... let's see what Prof Dawkins has to say about it:-

"The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype offered an unfamiliar vision of the familiar theory of natural selection, but they didn't discuss the evidence for evolution itself."
I agree that they did offer an unfamiliar vision of NS ... but no discussion of the evidence for evolution itself is to be found there ... so it's back onto the shelf, with them!!:eek:


"My next three books, in their different ways, sought to identify, and dissolve, the main barriers to understanding. These books, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and (my favourite of the three) Climbing Mount Improbable, answered questions like, 'What is the use of half an eye?' 'What is the use of half a wing?' 'How can natural selection work, given that most mutations have negative effects?' Once again, however, these three books, although they cleared away stumbling blocks, did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact. "
I agree that they did seek to identify and dissolve the main barriers to understanding Evolution ... but did not present the actual evidence that evolution is a fact... so it's back onto the shelf, with them!!:eek:

"My largest book, The Ancestor's Tale, laid out the full course of the history of life, as a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time, but it again assumed that evolution is true."
I agree that it did go on a sort of ancestor-seeking Chaucerian pilgrimage going backwards in time... but it again assumed that evolution is true... so it's back onto the shelf, with it!!:eek:

... so Robin, could you be your usual helpful self ... and take us all out of our misery and 'show us da money' ... and give us the evidence, once and for all, for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution?

Delirium

would you look at that, JC tackles various Dawkins books except for the book that was written to show the evidence for evolution.

btw, JC, you've yet to produce any evidence for the creation myth.

blackdog2

JC, if held to your high standard, there is no evidence for creation. Everything that the creation theory/myth is based on is 2000 year old hearsay

dead one

blackdog2 wrote: »

JC, if held to your high standard, there is no evidence for creation. Everything that the creation theory/myth is based on is 2000 year old hearsay

Is there evidence for evolution?. Please share it.... So i can see it..

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Is there evidence for evolution?. Please share it.... So i can see it..

I've posted this before as proof of evolution.

Love takes many forms. Members of the Fore tribe of Papua New Guinea used to believe that when someone died, their loved ones should eat every bit of the body. The daugthers ate the brain and sometimes fed tidbits to their children (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, vol 363, p 3721).

This tradition led to the spread of degenerative brain disease called kuru. Like Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, it is caused by a rogue prion protein that accumulates in the brain. Kuru killed nearly all the young women in some villages. But a few did not succumb. They were the descendants of a person born around 200 years ago with an unusual mutation in the prion protein that stops it going rogue. As kuru became widespread, the mutation rapidly became more common. Half of the women in the areas most affected now carry the mutation, which has not been found anywhere else in the world. If the tradition of cannibalism had not been stopped in the 1950s, it would have become even more common among the Fore (New England Journal of Medicine, vol 361, p 2056).

The emergence of kuru resistance is one of the clearest examples of very rapid human evolution but it is far from the only one. Around 3000 years ago, the ancestors of the Tibetans split from the population that give rise to the Han people of China. As soon as they began living at altitude, the population began to adapt. While some of the adaptations are a result of living in the mountains - a bit like altitude training in athletes - some are genetic.

One variant in a gene controlling the production of red blood cells, for instance, is found in 78 per cent of Tibetans but just 9 per cent of Han people. And the process has not stopped. "We think the selection process is ongoing," says Rasmus Nielsen of the University of California, Berkeley, who led the study (Science, vol 329, p 75).

More evidence comes from a study of Tibetan women living above 4000 metres. Those with high-levels of oxygen in the blood had 3.6 surviving children on average, whereas those with low oxygen levels had just 1.6 due to much higher infant mortality. That suggests the genetic variant thought to be responsible for higher blood oxygen levels is being passed on in greater numbers and becoming more common (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol 101, p 14300).

Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is evidence of evolution. Bacteria who are genetically resistant to certain antibiotics continue to reproduce while their counterparts are killed off. This leads to entire populations of lovelies such as MRSA. Evolution is the reason why penicillin is now largely useless.

A lab experiment which provides strong evidence for evolution: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

'OH WAAAAH NO PROOF OF MACROEVOLUTION'

Macroevolution is microevolution on a huge time-scale. Tiny, minute changes over time mean that if you step back and examine an organism and its descendant from a billion years later, they will (often) be vastly different.

Here's an interesting site: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Genghiz Cohen

koth wrote: »

I've posted this before as proof of evolution.

Also

Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.

It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected, because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.

dead one

koth wrote: »

I've posted this before as proof of evolution.

Right!!! How it proves materialist philosophy of evolution.... Please explain?

In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter; that all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions. In other words, matter is the only substance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

Right!!! How it proves materialist philosophy of evolution.... Please explain?

Please explain what you don't understand in the article.

dead one

koth wrote: »

Please explain what you don't understand in the article.

That's what i have explained in above question.....How your evidence supports materialist philosophy of evolution...... Would you kindly brief it.... or you don't believe in materialist philosophy of evolution?...... Please sum up points in context of your evidence.....

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

That's what i have explained in above question.....How your evidence supports materialist philosophy of evolution...... Would you kindly brief it.... or you don't believe in materialist philosophy of evolution?...... Please sum up points in context of your evidence.....

you asked for evidence of evolution, I posted it. You then replied with a question on philosophy, which is nothing to do with the text I posted.

Do you agree or disagree that the text I posted is evidence for evolution?

dead one

dead one wrote: »

Right!!! How it proves materialist philosophy of evolution.... Please explain?

Evolution does not imply materialism. You are displaying a huge misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the theory of evolution explains.

A huge proportion of theists accept that evolution is a fact.

dead one

koth wrote: »

you asked for evidence of evolution, I posted it. You then replied with a question on philosophy, which is nothing to do with the text I posted.

Do you agree or disagree that the text I posted is evidence for evolution?

See, I don't disagree with the evidence..... But the problem is with materialist philosophy evolution....... Your evidence doesn't support materlist philosophy of evolution.... So how it can be evidence....... You even don't know what is materialist philosophy of evolution..... How can you explain your evidence to support Materialist philosophy of evolution..... it is thing which you don't know......... If you are talking evolution as general term i have no problem with it.... I also believe in it........ I have problem with materialist philosophy of evolution....

I believe God developed life and I also believe general idea that life developed in stages. over a period of time..... Right!!!!

See, Pasting article doesn't mean you are expert in evolution? and you can answer every question?

dead one

Deleted User wrote: »

Evolution does not imply materialism. You are displaying a huge misunderstanding of what evolution is and what the theory of evolution explains.

See buddy!!! I clearly know what i am talking but you don't know it
Theory of evolution begins with materialist philosophy, Now what is materialist philosophy i.e the universe consists of matter and that matter is the only thing that exists. Therefore, matter has existed for all time and no other power rules over it.Materialists believe that blind coincidence caused the universe to shape itself and life to come about by gradually evolving from non-living substances,
Simply In other words, all living things in the world emerged as the result of natural influences and chance.

Deleted User wrote: »

A huge proportion of theists accept that evolution is a fact.

See, If you are talking evolution as general term....Like God developed life into stages.....I have no problem with it....... but problem is with philosophy.....

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

See, I don't disagree with the evidence..... But the problem is with materialist philosophy evolution....... Your evidence doesn't support materlist philosophy of evolution.... So how it can be evidence....... You even don't know what is materialist philosophy of evolution..... How can you explain your evidence to support Materialist philosophy of evolution..... it is thing which you don't know......... If you are talking evolution as general term i have no problem with it.... I also believe in it........ I have problem with materialist philosophy of evolution....

I believe God developed life and I also believe general idea that life developed in stages. over a period of time..... Right!!!!

See, Pasting article doesn't mean you are expert in evolution? and you answering every question?

would you please read what I actually posted please? I posted evidence of evolution, and you've gone off on a philosophical tangent instead of answering my question.

and where did I say I was an expert in evolution? You asked for evidence and I posted some. Are you saying that you'd only consider the article if the original author posted it?

Anyways, you answered my question, you accept that it is proof of evolution.

dead one

koth wrote: »

Anyways, you answered my question, you accept that it is proof of evolution.

You haven't clear..... Does your evidence support materialist philosophy of evolution.....
What i have learned from it..... It doesn't support!!!......... Today many evolutionist supports materialist philosophy of evolution... Right..... Perhaps you should learn about it....

Delirium

dead one wrote: »

You haven't clear..... Does your evidence support materialist philosophy of evolution.....
What i have learned from it..... It doesn't support!!!......... Today many evolutionist supports materialist philosophy of evolution... Right..... Perhaps you should learn about it....

Yes, it does. Now explain how that statement is wrong please.

Genghiz Cohen

dead one wrote: »

You haven't clear..... Does your evidence support materialist philosophy of evolution.....
What i have learned from it..... It doesn't support!!!......... Today many evolutionist supports materialist philosophy of evolution... Right..... Perhaps you should learn about it....

None of the evidence points that a supernatural force is necessary. Therefore it supports a naturalistic view on evolution.

POINTBREAK

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

None of the evidence points that a supernatural force is necessary. Therefore it supports a naturalistic view on evolution.

.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and accepted by all right minded people. These two are just using deflection by asking for proof. A simple search will bring up volumes of evidence.

robindch

J C wrote: »

and give us the evidence, once and for all, for 'Pondkind to Mankind' Evolution?

Over the last six and a half years, it's been provided to you innumerable times -- links, posts, videos, book references, talks, lectures, pamphlets, websites, the works. And for all the information you've been able to retain, your most recent posts are as hopeless as your most ancient.

As I said or implied somewhere above, there really are more fun things to do than spoon feed you a crayon-level introduction to stuff that you have no interest in understanding, assuming the immeasurably distant possibility that you are smart enough to.

But no, do please keep posting -- your posts are the best anti-creationist propaganda there is!