Thursday, August 8, 2013

Fletch Evolution Evidence?

A must see video on the lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution. When science students and professors are asked to provide even ONE example of Darwinian evolution, they can't come up with one that is provable by scientific methods.

36 comment(s):

leftrightout said...

Hilarious.

This is what the religious have been reduced to, to rely on Ray Comfort, a known liar.

Comfort very selectively edits the comments, and he admitted to this when challenged by PZ Myers.

Comfort has no knowledge of biology, he simply makes stuff up, such as "kinds", a biblical term, but one that has no relevance in scientific biology.

And who could forget his "banana analogy" and the many ways he has rewritten and evaded over being shown to be a fool over that one?

If you want to 'disprove evolution" you'll need better than Ray Comfort; you'll need to do some real scientific research.

So, to ray Comfort, all I can do is echo PZ's words - keep lying, little man.

bamac said...

LRO,
You evidently believe in evolution ... what started the chain ? what caused the big bang? Honest question .,, how can something come out of nothing ? How can nothing explode and suddenly become something ?
When I asked these questions of an atheist friend of mine many years ago he replied that that would be discovered eventually by scientific study .... Really ?
How would you answer LRO
Mrs Mac

David Winter said...

Even if you, going against everything you know about Ray Comfort, presume this video has been edited ethically, this is pretty embarrassing for creationists.

Like most of his fellow travelers, Comfort is fighting against his own misunderstanding of evolutionary biology. He get's plenty of evidence for Darwinian evolution, but dismisses it because he wants evince for something else.

bamac said...

David Winter,
What then is your solid evidence for the very beginning of evolution ? Big bang? what caused it ? Admittedly I know precious little scientific knowledge but I was always taught to believe that everything has a cause... what then was the cause of the Big Bang?
Mrs Mac

leftrightout said...

Mrs Mac,

You evidently believe in evolution ... what started the chain ? what caused the big bang?

These questions, while important, are nothing to do with evolution. They are not questions of biology, but of physics. In your own small way, you are being as disingenuous as Ray Comfort. Or you don't understand the difference.

When I asked these questions of an atheist friend of mine many years ago he replied that that would be discovered eventually by scientific study .... Really ?

Yes, Mrs mac, really. You see, science doesn't know everything, but religion doesn't know anything. Science progresses, religion is static.

The evidence in favour of evolution is overwhelming, far more so than the evidence for any of the mythical gods.

Keep asking questions, its a good thing to do.

leftrightout said...

Mrs mac I was always taught to believe that everything has a cause... what then was the cause of the Big Bang?

The cosmological argument has been debunked so many times, I didn't think anyone would ever try to use it again, but here it is.

For your argument to work you must presuppose the existence of an uncaused cause, eg god. But unless you can find what caused god, your argument founders. Its elephants all the way down from there.

Another way to put it is your are asking the equivalent of "What is north of the North Pole"?

David Winter said...

Hi Mrs Mac,

That's not the beginning of evolution - that's the beginning of existence!

Evolutionary biology starts with the fairly safe assumption that live and the universe exists, and sets about working our how when and where life evolved.

I'll have to leave the origin of the Universe to cosmologists and philosophers.

bamac said...

Thank you both of you for your replies .
So am I to take it from what you state that the universe ALWAYS existed... that it never had a beginning or a cause and that in that universe evolution suddenly began at some stage and kept on evolving right up to the present day .... .... That being so then I wonder what is yet to evolve from mankind ! My poor mind boggles!
Mrs Mac

Ezekiel Benedict said...

Never believed in evolution. It's laughable.

Ezekiel Benedict said...

Heh, the evoutionists get upset when someone questions faith in their psuedo scientific religion.

leftrightout said...

The contrast between Mrs Mac, who doesn't understand, but tries to, and Zeke who thinks he's clever by putting his fingers in his ears and yelling "LALALALALALA" at the top of his voice.

Zeke, there's a Nobel prize awaiting you, you just need to come up with a plausible counter theory. Please feel free to enlighten us on your alternate theory.

bamac said...

LRO,
It seems that both you and David believe that the universe has always existed, that it never had a beginning, that it somehow managed to create itself .
Somehow, you believe, land and sea came into being ... along with all that is necessary for life of any kind to exist ... the seemingly ordered and beautifully orchestrated patterns of nature with the rhythm of its seasons ... all of this JUST HAPPENED.

You both claim that you believe that the universe has been in existence from time eternal , that it wasn't created .. it just was there ....my belief in the existence of God Is the same when it comes to never having been created -- He is/was eternal and will always be

You say that you can't believe in God... me , I can't believe in a world without Him.
LRO, David, and Milt too , this old lady prays every day that one day God , the God who believes in and loves you ( for He loves us all individually ) will trip you up leave you all with no doubt at all that He does indeed exist .. then you will find life become that much richer just as He has done for me.
shalom,
Mrs Mac

leftrightout said...

LRO,
It seems that both you and David believe that the universe has always existed, that it never had a beginning, that it somehow managed to create itself .


I can't speak for the others, but that is not what I said. All I said was that the origins of the universe is a matter for physics, not biology.

Somehow, you believe, land and sea came into being ... along with all that is necessary for life of any kind to exist ... the seemingly ordered and beautifully orchestrated patterns of nature with the rhythm of its seasons ... all of this JUST HAPPENED.

Pretty much, yes. It did all just happen, we are the beneficiaries / victims of this happenstance, along with possibly other intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.

Mrs Mac, please tell my why god felt it necessary to create this vast, wondrous and awe inspiring universe when all his plan needed was a garden and a few trees.

bamac said...

LRO before I answer your last question ... will you answer mine ... if one believes in evolution ... when will evolution end ? will there be further evolving after mankind? If you feel that humans will indeed evolve further .. into what I wonder.. if not then why not?

God made man out of love for us. God is not limited to human reasoning .. He did not stop at creating just some marvelous garden with a few trees .. the more that I see of the beauties of nature , the seeming endless variety of scenes that have taken my breath away , the great number of animals and people, the more grateful I feel towards Him .... He made all the beauty of life of all kinds for man to enjoy and for us to return Him love for love .
I have always felt that for someone to be able to paint a really beautiful painting or drawing , for a composer to bring to fruition some beautiful piece of music , there must be something beautiful in the character of that person ... God has created for us something far more beautiful than any painting or musical score could ever be... just how wonderful He must be .
Why did God make us ? out of unfathomable and unconditional love ... that we may learn to know Him and come love Him and to live our lives the way that pleases Him ... we fail at times in doing this but if we turn to Him and tell Him that we are truly sorry , He forgives us just as any loving parent would..
Sorry if I have gone on some but you did ask .. it is this loving God that I pray you will be led to come to know then come to love one day in God's time.
God Bless ,
Mrs Mac

Psycho Milt said...

I'm sorry, but this wasn't anything like as funny as his "Banana Man" sketch.

Mrs Mac: your questions weren't addressed to me, but this being a public comments thread I'm going to butt in with some answers:

when will evolution end ?

There are a few possible answers to this one:
1. It will end when life ends.
2. In theory it would end if selection pressure ended, ie if every living entity had limitless resources available to it with no need to compete for them - but it's hard to imagine how that could occur in practice. There is some speculation that selection pressure has ended for humans living in developed countries, as pretty much everyone who wants to can reproduce, including people who couldn't have survived to puberty a couple of centuries ago. However, that remains speculation.
3. It's hard to see any other possibilities - life as we know it is built for genetic variation, which makes evolution inevitable as long as there are finite resources available. I guess we may eventually develop life forms that don't involve genetic variation (eg, machine-base artificial intelligence), but that won't be any time soon.

will there be further evolving after mankind?

1. Given that we're a few steps away from being able to manipulate the human genome, you bet people are going to be different in the future - probably in a timescale of centuries rather than hundreds of millennia.

2. There's no way for humans to stop evolving. Viruses and bacteria wouldn't let us.

bamac said...

Milt,
You were included in a way in my questions and thank you too for your explanation of your understanding.
... in fact thank all three of you for all you have shared .
LRO, you said earlier that " science progresses, Religion is static" " No way Jose is Religion static in my books .Religion for me is my relationship with God , a relationship that has grown and deepened over the seventy odd years of my life ... can any real relationship be static? I don't believe it can .

Thank you all three for sharing as you have ... All of this discussion has made me all the more grateful to God for the gift that He given me in the simplicity of my Faith and love for Him and for the church that He founded with all the helps there-in to help me on my life journey , along with a love and interest in people .... that interest and love, I feel , makes the world go round and life so worthwhile and interesting.

Am sure that I have been hogging more than my share of commenting so will say thanks again and go and retire into a good mystery novel...
God Bless,
Mrs Mac



















religio

the conservative said...

Fletcher, I enjoyed that, especially the blind faith in evolution aspect, and also that woman who said they can teach what ever they like at universities.

Psycho Milt said...

Er, they can teach whatever they like at universities - there are even religious ones.

After my comment above, I got to thinking about how this argument is framed. Basically, Comfort's question is the wrong one - what he really should be asking is "Given what we now know about the way living creatures reproduce, what plausible theory could a person come up with in which those creatures don't evolve over time?" As far as I can see, there isn't one - evolution is inevitable given genetic variation and finite resources. Creationists would need some theory that involved divine intervention to prevent evolution occurring.

David Winter said...

Yeah, pretty much. Evolutionary change is unavoidable, even in the absence of natural selection.

The slightly more reasonable question might be are evolutionary processes powerful enough to create the difference seen between, say, birds and non-avian dinosaurs. Field studies and fossils and molecular evidence all says yes. Creationists say no, but have never, as far as I can tell, managed to say where the limit to how far evolutionary processes can make two lineages diverge is.

Comfort is, of course, particularly comical with this "but they're still bacteria" business. As if evolutionary biology required instantaneous transformations (for a transition that has happened once in 3.8 billion years of life, at that)

Ezekiel Benedict said...

Hahaha evolution is to science what scientology is to religion

bamac said...

Milt,
If we agree with your explanation of the chain of evolution , if we then follow that chain way back to its initial start, what do we find? An atom maybe? From whence came that atom or whatever it was that was that initial start? what caused that atom to exist even if it had always existed ?

For me if we accept that theory , that atom was created by God , and into that atom He put all that would be needed for it to evolve and keep on evolving ... the plan of evolution would then be the plan planned by God who is not limited by a mind as small as that of ours.
True knowledge of, and Faith in God, is not something that we can learn in the same way as we learn a language or how to solve a mathematical problem so that we can say " ah, so that what it is" We learn what we can about God and we sincerely ask Him to help us to truly know Him and come to love and follow Him. when we know anyone , we get to know them with our mind but grow to love them with our heart don't we? It is the same with our relationship with God ... with His help we come to love Him with the whole of our mind and heart... this Faith is a gift from God himself.
I feel that more people would come to this knowledge and love if they were to sincerely ask " God , if you really exist and are a God of love then please let me come to know and love you" Maybe too many people are too scared for some reason to do so.
God Bless,
Mrs Mac

Psycho Milt said...

How life arose in the first place is likely to remain a matter of theory, not evidence.

However, your mention of atoms prompted a thought: for his next video, Ray could visit physics students of a university, ask them if they believe in atoms, and then ask whether they can show him one.

leftrightout said...

Mrs mac, if we accept your belief that god exists and created everything, what was he doing prior to creation? Or was he created simultaneously with the Universe?

bamac said...

LRO ,
y Catholic Faith teaches me, and this I believe , that God always was and always will be ....He was never created. Exactly when He created the universe, or maybe set evolution in motion, is a question that none of us could answer .... but then can science put a positive date on when the universe began either?
To know the mind of God ,one would have to be equal to God and that is not possible for God is so much greater than any of us His creatures ... Maybe not the best example but can your pet animal ( if you do have one ) ,know when the house, that said pet shares with you , when that house was built or when you first moved into it ? your ability to know and understand things is greater than the animal , as fond of it as you might be ... just so it is between us and God as much as we may love Him.

Mrs Mac

ZenTiger said...

A question to LRO and David Winter: Do you believe in the possibility of a virgin birth? (Scientifically speaking)

ZenTiger said...

Actually, an open question to any..

David Winter said...

There are many virgin births in biology - but none in mammals. We have a few genes with a parent-of-origin effect, which basically means a male is a requirement absent genetic engineering.

ZenTiger said...

Hi David. So what does an evolving liver look like over 30,000 years? Does it grow before the pancreas or in concert with it? Do humans all evolve livers or do some liver-less lines die off?

My proposition is that if you believe in evolution, and it is so gradual you cannot see it but eventually "bingo" a pancreas - well then, Mary's line may have been a long line of evolving humans with a very different genetic structure allowing ultimately, an immaculate conception, in a genetic line where Parthenogenesis was possible.

Evolutionary theory cannot be discounted as far as I can see - or you' have to discount a lot of other fairly incredible developments.

The hand of God moves in mysterious ways to do his works.

leftrightout said...

This claim is an instance of the argument from incredulity. In all specific instances of this claim, there are ways for the organs and organ systems to evolve gradually. The idea that they could not evolve usually involves one or more of the following errors in thinking:


a. That organ parts appear suddenly. This seems to be an artifact of creationist thinking. Evolution, however, is not creationism; parts change gradually.

b. That organs less developed than what exists now must be completely useless. This is nonsense. A light-sensitive patch on the skin may not be as useful as the eyes we have now, but it is better than nothing. And just a little bit better is all that is required for the trait to evolve.

c. That parts must evolve separately. Coordinated innovation between parts of an organ or organ system is possible. Indeed, if the parts evolve gradually, it is inconceivable that parts that interact would not coevolve in such a way that changes are coordinated via natural selection.

d. That parts do not change function. Many organs do not start from nothing. Rather, they start as a part that serves a different function and gradually gets co-opted for a new function. For example, tetrapod legs evolved from fins.

Perhaps you would like to explain why humans have vestigal organs like the appendix? By the way, I do not have 'blind faith' in evolution. I believe evolution to be true because everything we know about biology from our morphology to modern medicine becomes utterly mysterious without evolution. I recommend you read 'Making of the Fittest' by Sean B. Carroll. I found it a far more comprehensive and informative account of how humans came to be than the Bible's account - that 'God created man' and 'created women from Adam's rib'.

leftrightout said...

Hominids who didn't have an efficient liver system or whichever organ you choose, for their environment, didn't survive and didn't get to mate much because with an inefficient (insert organ here no sexual innuendo intended), they were weaker or more sickly than other potential mates, so they did not get to donate to the gene pool. Eventually all the hominids that survived had an efficient (again insert favorite organ here) system, then the whole thing started again. That is why every once in awhile someone is born with an inefficient (favorite organ here) that is some rare disease or dysfunction; one of those long suppressed genes popped up again.

David Winter said...

Zen, you seem to have left a lot of unconnected dots here. Is some of the comment missing?

In any case, for the specific question. Liver's aren't an invention of the human lineage - we inherit our livers from a common ancestor that lived ~500 million years ago. So there were no humans without livers.

More generally, evolution doesn't work by creating a lineage within a species that has some new trait in toto. Traits evolve in populations, through the accumulation of new mutations that each take over the population. It's particularly difficult for traits that effect reproduction to evolve within a population, for the obvious reason that between-group matings would fail.

If you intention was to show that your fact-free speculative theory was on par with modern evolutionary biology, you should probably learn a little about evolutionary biology.

ZenTiger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ZenTiger said...

Hi there. I was not suggesting there were no persons without livers, nor that they instantly appeared (LRO).

It was the point, as you say (DW), that such things evolve as traits.

So why couldn't the traits that lead to an ability to produce offspring with or without a male arise(I.E, both options present, not one or the other), be present in Mary and any other member of a sub-population no-one bothered to do genetic testing on back in the year 1 BC?

You say it only arises in a population. Are you implying there is only one population present? I'd disagree with that. There seems to me to be many populations present at any one time across the globe, and that therefore there could be many genetic variations in existence across the many populations, in many different stages of evolution. Of which Mary could have been a member of one.

So perhaps my question should be: "Can you think of any set of circumstances, no matter how improbable (because life, in that sense is improbable) that could actually explain this if it turned out to be true - rather than starting from the POV that it is impossible."

I have read a few journal articles on evolution where a new fish/insect/microbe is discovered that represents something thought impossible/no foreseeable, and having found it, figure out that maybe it is possible within the evolving theory of evolution (aside from the evidence staring back at them).


And sure, I should probably learn a little more about evolutionary biology, indeed, I have started as the topic does interest me. But I'm not going to let my beginner status stop me from asking questions. It is posing such questions that inspires me to study to find answers. (Thanks for your answers)

David Winter said...

I cannot think of any even vaguely plausable scenario in which a human subpopulation could evolve the ability to reproduce asexually (and especially not which could produce male offspring!).

It's physically possible, I guess. But equating mere possibility with probability is a bad idea. It's possible that giant apes walk through North American forests, but since this is highly implausible, and there is no good evidence for this conclusion, I think we can safely ignore bigfoot.

ZenTiger said...

Hi. Thanks.


Well, the only plausible scenario I came up with was parthenogenesis. An unfertilised egg becomes male, a fertilised egg becomes female. That's pretty much already a happening thing.

Obviously, the female might need dormant X chromosomes (or Y chromosome for the male aspect, however you want to look at it), or come up with a new type of chromosome, but that was the point of evolution...

But given I have much study to do to see how evolutionary theory is comfortable accounting for billions of advantageous changes given enough time, I'll come back to this conversation in a year or two and see if it can evolve :)

David Winter said...

You're confusing humans and wasps.

As I said earlier, parthenogenesis isn't possible in mammals thanks to our imprinted genes. In any case, sex is determined by the presence of a y-chromosome in (placental) mammals. You can't just have a "dormant" evolve.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.