Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?

[eots]

It is enough evidence to prove extinction and adaptation within species..certainly not enough to prove the whole big bang primordial soup theory..

You're the first to mention the big bang. It is irrelevant to evolution.

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

 

[cnm]

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

It is the best current knowledge, I don't think 'cosmic evolution' fits the case, but in any event, who knows? I don't think any scientist categorically claims it is the case, merely that the evidence seems to fit the theory. In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

 

[orogenicman]

My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally off their rocker. John Ashton fits the latter category.

You didn't read it, did you? Typical.

Yes I have read it. Ashton, like so many so-called Creationist scholars, are experts at self-deception. Ashton once declared that even if he could prove to himself that evolution was real, he would have to deny it because of his faith in the scriptures. And that, sir, just takes my breath away.

Link?

I have a better idea. Write him a letter asking him why he has never published a single peer-reviewed work that included these so-called 12 reasons why evolution is impossible. You realize, of course, that he is not an evolutionary scientist, and has no field training, and very little academic experience in evolutionary biology. He is a nutritionist.

Here's an even better idea. Can you refute anything he said? Didnt think so.

I can refute all of it.

 

[eots]

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

 

[orogenicman]

It is enough evidence to prove extinction and adaptation within species..certainly not enough to prove the whole big bang primordial soup theory..

You're the first to mention the big bang. It is irrelevant to evolution.

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

While it is true that if the big bang had not occurred, we would not be here, it is not true that evolution is a necessary consequence of the big bang. There are plenty of places in the universe we can point to where biological evolution has likely not occurred. The universe is not finely tuned for us.

 

[orogenicman]

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.

 

[eots]

They tell us that. We lost our tails. Evolving up. From little snails. I say it's all. Just wind in sails. Are we not men ! we are Devo .. D-E-V-O.

 

[eots]

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.

the

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

 

[eots]

If not by design..it is random,accidental

 

[orogenicman]

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.

the

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

Many (though not all) mutations are random. The biochemical reactions that create them are not, and neither is the force (natural selection) the selects them for future generations.

 

[eots]

design
Antonyms for design

• disorganization
• being

• foul-up mix-up
• anarchy
• chaos
• confusion

• derangement
• disarray
• disjointedness
• disorder
• disruption

• dissolution
• disunion
• incoherence
• unconnected
• unholy mess

 

[eots]

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?

It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.

the

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

Many (though not all) mutations are random. The biochemical reactions that create them are not, and neither is the force (natural selection) the selects them for future generations.

“Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future…the past. Old friends long gone.”


- Yoda

 

[orogenicman]

If not by design..it is random,accidental

Utter nonsense. Natural selection works nearly exactly like artificial selection with the exception that the former, in most cases, takes a much longer time to occur. If disease spreads through a population such that 2/3rds die off, the 1/3 that survives usually is conferred an immunity to that disease. And so that population has been naturally selected to survive further outbreaks from that particular disease. And the genes of that population survive to the next generation. There is nothing designed about it. If a bird habitually eats a particular nut that has a soft shell, over time, the nuts with harder shells tend to survive and pass on their genes for harder shells. In response, those birds will, over time, develop a tougher beak in order to break open the harder nuts. And so on and so forth until at last we see a different bird from the original and a different nut from the original. Darwin's finches and the nuts they eat did exactly this.

 

[orogenicman]

It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.

the

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random

Many (though not all) mutations are random. The biochemical reactions that create them are not, and neither is the force (natural selection) the selects them for future generations.

“Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future…the past. Old friends long gone.”


- Yoda

Either you want to discuss evolution or you want to be obtuse. You cannot do both and expect me to continue here. You decide.

 

[orogenicman]

design
Antonyms for design

• disorganization
• being

• foul-up mix-up
• anarchy
• chaos
• confusion

• derangement
• disarray
• disjointedness
• disorder
• disruption

• dissolution
• disunion
• incoherence
• unconnected
• unholy mess

Was there a point you were trying to make? I don't see one.

 

[eots]

design
Antonyms for design

• disorganization
• being

• foul-up mix-up
• anarchy
• chaos
• confusion

• derangement
• disarray
• disjointedness
• disorder
• disruption

• dissolution
• disunion
• incoherence
• unconnected
• unholy mess

Was there a point you were trying to make? I don't see one.

well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental

 

[cnm]

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science random accident theory of creation at the primordial soup stage ?

For gods' sakes, do you take nothing in? This is not a discussion about creation.

 

[Old Rocks]

So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?

Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?

Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.

 

[orogenicman]

design
Antonyms for design

• disorganization
• being

• foul-up mix-up
• anarchy
• chaos
• confusion

• derangement
• disarray
• disjointedness
• disorder
• disruption

• dissolution
• disunion
• incoherence
• unconnected
• unholy mess

Was there a point you were trying to make? I don't see one.

well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental

It may appear that way to you, and if so, it is only because you don't understand the principles and laws of physics and chemistry. As for random mutations, they may not be as random as was once thought:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones. Image: Wikimedia commons, Jerome Walker, Dennis Myts"The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist Maud Tenaillon.

 

[eots]

• 
  I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.