Evolution still happening in the present?

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Evolution still happening in the present?

One of the most commonly used arguments for evolution is the claim that evolution is still happening now. But where is the evidence for this, and why can't we see it happening? If evolution were still taking place in the present, then naturally, you would expect to be able to witness it happening, but we don't. If I'm wrong, can anybody give me a single shred of evidence to support this widely held claim?

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Nylonase for oneOthers here

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Drug resistant strains . . is a common example . .

# 1  To:: Op

Re :: Drug resistant strains . . is a common example . .

 

Evolution of resistance–bacteria win again
By Tara Smith on November 15th

Drug resistance in strains of antibiotics is evolution in action. The resistance to antibiotics has been a concern of scientists almost since their widespread use began. In a 1945 interview with the New York Times, Alexander Fleming himself warned that the misuse of penicillin could lead to selection of resistant forms of bacteria, and indeed, he’d already derived such strains in the lab by varying doses of penicillin the bacteria were subjected to. A short 5 years later, several hospitals had reported that a majority of their Staph isolates were, as predicted, resistant to penicillin. This decline in effectiveness has led to a search for new sources and kinds of antimicrobial agents. One strategy involves going back to a decades-old approach researched by Soviet scientists: phage therapy. Here, they pit one microbe directly against another, using viruses called bacteriophage to infect, and kill, pathogenic bacteria. Vincent Fischetti at Rockefeller University has used this successfully to kill anthrax, Streptococcus pyogenes, and others. Another novel source of antibiotics has come from our own innate immune system, one of our initial defenses against microbial invaders.

An enormous variety of organisms produce compounds called cationic antimicrobial peptides. A component of our own innate immune system, these are fairly short strings of amino acids (less than 100 a.a.’s) that have a net positive charge. It is thought that these peptides work primarily by disrupting the integrity of the bacterial cell wall, essentially poking holes in the wall, causing death of the cell. Since the peptides are targeted at the bacterial cell wall structure, it was thought that resistance would require a fundamental change in membrane structure, making it an exceedingly rare event. Therefore, these antimicrobial peptides might make an excellent weapon in the fight against multiply drug-resistant bacteria. Additionally, the remarkable diversity of these peptides, combined with the presence of multiple types of peptides with different mechanisms of action present at the infection site, rendered unlikely the evolution of resistance to these molecules (or so the common thinking went). However, evolutionary biologists have pointed out that therapeutic use of these peptides would differ from natural exposure: concentration would be significantly higher, and a larger number of microbes would be exposed. Additionally, resistance to these peptides has been detailed in a few instances. For example, resistance to antimicrobial peptides has been shown to be essential for virulence in Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella species, but we didn’t *witness* that resistance develop–therefore, it might simply be that those species have physiological properties that render them naturally resistant to many of these peptides, and were never susceptible in the first place.

Antimicrobial resistance is always a problem—it can render antibiotics much less useful, and make deadly infections almost untreatable. But resistance to these peptides could make us all vulnerable. The peptides of our innate immune system are one of our first lines of defense against an immense variety of pathogens, and we don’t know what the outcome may be if we compromise this essential level of protection. But realistically, could such resistance evolve within the bacterial population?

Dr. Michael Zasloff of Georgetown University was originally a doubter. In this 2002 Nature article, he states in conclusion:

    Studies both in the laboratory and in the clinic confirm that emergence of resistance against antimicrobial peptides is less probable than observed for conventional antibiotics, and provides the impetus to develop antimicrobial peptides, both natural and laboratory conceived, into therapeutically useful agents.

Certainly in the short term, resistance was unlikely to evolve for the reasons I mentioned above. However, if these peptides are used over an extended period of time, could the mutations necessary to confer resistance accumulate? This was the question asked in a new study by Dr. Zasloff along with colleagues Gabriel Perron and Graham Bell. Following publication of his 2002 paper where he called evolution of resistance to these peptides “improbable,” Bell challenged Zasloff to test this theory. Zasloff took him up on the offer, and they’ve published their results in Proceedings of the Royal Society.

They tested this using strains of E. coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens. They started out growing these bacteria with low concentrations of a peptide antibiotic called pexiganan, a derivative of a peptide originally isolated from a frog. (Carl Zimmer has an excellent post on this same topic here). The experimental design was quite simple. They grew the bacteria, took a portion of the growth, and added that to a new tube with fresh media. Gradually, they increased the concentration of pexiganan in the growth medium. In all, they did 100 serial transfers of the bacteria (correlating to ~500-600 generations of bacteria), and the end result were–voilà !–bacterial populations that were resistant to the peptides.

Creationists/ID advocates (such as chemist Phil Skell) often claim that “evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology,” or that “evolution has little to do with almost all research in biology and biotechnology”, etc. etc. And sure, the theory of evolution didn’t *directly* result in the discovery of peptide antibiotics. But advances in biotechnology do not exist in a vacuum, and we have seen what can occur from the misapplication of these types of technologies, unguided by an understanding of underlying evolutionary principles. Peptide antibiotics have not yet been used clinically to treat human infections, but imagine if they had gone into widespread use without a thought given to the evolution of resistance to these peptides. Imagine if they had gone into widespread use prior to an investigation of the relatedness of various peptides to those produced by humans. Imagine if, as a result of not considering these implications, we had lost an ancient protection against bacteria—-which *evolved* over millions of years of host-pathogen interaction–due to a mere advancement in biotechnology. While I enjoy proving the evolution-doubters wrong, I hope it never comes down to that kind of situation in order to do so, and I hope this example is instructive to those who claim that evolution isn’t useful, and can be used to our advantage.
 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4157
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
 Generally it is pretty

 Generally it is pretty difficult to "see" it happening because it is by definition a very slow process, however one only needs to look at any species of dog or any genetically engineered vegetable (pretty much all of them) to see its results. 

Prozac, check your PM settings.


jdude15 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline

jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote:jcgadfly

Glad you conceded nylonase.

I've read those links. Did you look at mine or is it just easier for you to trade science for bullshit?

Not a big fan of being lied to even if you do it for Jesus.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jdude15 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Re: Drug resistant strains . . is a common example . .

 First off, I would just like to say that I very much appreciate how respectful your argument is. In your argument, you have presented logical facts that are worth acknowledging and you were very specific and thorough. That is how all of these arguments should be.

 

As it would take me far too much time to go through and examine each and every argument you made (you gave a lot), I would like to direct you to this link:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

This website has mountains of information that I'm sure you will find useful, so please visit it.

 

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote: First off, I

jdude15 wrote:

 First off, I would just like to say that I very much appreciate how respectful your argument is. In your argument, you have presented logical facts that are worth acknowledging and you were very specific and thorough. That is how all of these arguments should be.

 

As it would take me far too much time to go through and examine each and every argument you made (you gave a lot), I would like to direct you to this link:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org

 

This website has mountains of information that I'm sure you will find useful, so please visit it.

 

 

 

No it doesn't. It has mountains of something but it's not information. As I said, I've looked at their stuff.

I hope you actually look at the talk-origins stuff. I gave you those links because I loathe reinventing the wheel (as you showed that you do when you linked me to Ham's falsehoods and Gish's fabrications).

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Within a 6,000 yr time-frame.. do tell me when the O2 levels 40%

..higher

 

re ::  Within the .. time-frame .. do tell me when the O2 levels were 40% higher than today's levels in the earth's atmosphere ?

 Allow me to say hi and a big welcome to you jdude15

   Oh, Within the last 6,000 yr time-frame .. do tell me when the Oxygen levels were 40% higher than than are today ? Provide a time and some data will you ?


 


 

5 November 2005

    Several years ago: In the Carboniferous, Kansas, USA
    Oxygen Content: 40% above today Hazards: 'Giant' insects   --  The second question, To cite an example, in forests of the Carboniferous. Would not you require a  higher oxygen content in the atmosphere, for 'giant' land arthropods to evolved, such as a Mesothelae (a member of the primitive spider suborder)?  Or 'Giant' Meganeura; a dragonfly and Arthropleura; Reptiliomorphs  or  Proterogyrinus?. Significance is the oxygen levels would have to have been much higher for them to develop into extreme huge sizes.                        
      Simply, In all particular Giant Insects, for Giant Insect support, when has the oxygen level shift(ed) to such extremes within the YEC timeline on this planet ? Can you find some reason for the change in its' levels for them/these ? Pay close attention to the term timeline.

 

 

p.s.  --   All in good time , I will be waiting so no rush.


jdude15 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
To jcgadfly

 I mean no offense, but you seem very quick to defend yourself and your position as an atheist. Could it be that you are just insecure in your beliefs, and so you take it out on people like me (creationists, I mean)? 

 

My friend, I have done nothing and said nothing to you that warrants this kind of hateful treatment. You also tell me that Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research (two fine Christian apologetics ministries) are nothing but lies and fabrications. Okay, if you say so. And by the way, yes, I do look at talk-origins stuff. In fact, it is because I am educated about evolution that it is so easy for me to see the problems with it. Furthermore, as creationists, we are not trying to reinvent or change anything. We are trying to share God's Word and lead people to Christ. We also strive to expose the lies of evolution.

 

I'm very sorry you think I'm a liar, but I think you should examine yourself and see if you really do not believe in God or if you are just trying to find a way to remove Him from your life.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1376
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
It is very sad, many were wishing they wouldnt lose another YEC:

jdude15 wrote:

 I mean no offense, but you seem very quick to defend yourself and your position as an atheist. Could it be that you are just insecure in your beliefs, and so you take it out on people like me (creationists, I mean)? 

 

My friend, I have done nothing and said nothing to you that warrants this kind of hateful treatment. You also tell me that Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research (two fine Christian apologetics ministries) are nothing but lies and fabrications. Okay, if you say so. And by the way, yes, I do look at talk-origins stuff. In fact, it is because I am educated about evolution that it is so easy for me to see the problems with it. Furthermore, as creationists, we are not trying to reinvent or change anything. We are trying to share God's Word and lead people to Christ. We also strive to expose the lies of evolution.

 

I'm very sorry you think I'm a liar, but I think you should examine yourself and see if you really do not believe in God or if you are just trying to find a way to remove Him from your life.

  Please allow me to re-state my personal welcome and fond hello to you. I should warn you this is an Atheist site so you can be expected to be challenged. If you are experiencing troubles already, please leave.  It is very REALLY sad, many were wishing they wouldnt lose another opportunity to talk with a YEC. I think you'd make a fine addition to the board. 

A claim the late Morris and Ham make today is there are no transitional and intermediate fossils.

danatemporary wrote:

 T0 : The OP :

    You are coming across as a very sensitive (albeit you're a gracious enough) fellow, I would like to apologize for some of the remarks you are to encounter.  We have been experiencing a lack of participation, missed opportunities, for anti-evolutionists and YEC to field questions. If you are interested I think it only fair to tell you there are certain expectations of you. As I once told Whitefox  I personally am finding it hard to recognize a Theist may simply not be gifted or motivated to do so.  Wrong of me clearly. I am so very sorry you are of such a sensitive nature. 

No transitional/intermediate forms in the fossil record ? Really?  A picture is worth a thousand words ..

 p.s. -- If someone claims a non-truth to be true; natural the assumption is tending toward a lie (e.g. -- age of the earth, levels of oxygen in the last 6000 yrs, no intermediate/transitional forms found in the fossil record, and so forth).

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote: I mean no

jdude15 wrote:

 I mean no offense, but you seem very quick to defend yourself and your position as an atheist. Could it be that you are just insecure in your beliefs, and so you take it out on people like me (creationists, I mean)? 

 

My friend, I have done nothing and said nothing to you that warrants this kind of hateful treatment. You also tell me that Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research (two fine Christian apologetics ministries) are nothing but lies and fabrications. Okay, if you say so. And by the way, yes, I do look at talk-origins stuff. In fact, it is because I am educated about evolution that it is so easy for me to see the problems with it. Furthermore, as creationists, we are not trying to reinvent or change anything. We are trying to share God's Word and lead people to Christ. We also strive to expose the lies of evolution.

 

I'm very sorry you think I'm a liar, but I think you should examine yourself and see if you really do not believe in God or if you are just trying to find a way to remove Him from your life.

When people bring me things again after I've told them I've looked at them I get a tad testy. I also get a little annoyed at people who don't lok at evidence and substitute apologetics.

I'm glad, however, that you admit that AiG and ICR are apologetics ministries and haven't got anything to do with science. That is an important admission.

I'm happy for you to keep trying to "expose the lies of evolution" though I think after a century and a half of trying theists would figure out that they can't because there are no lies there. You've shown that much since you can't seem to list of a problem that evolution has though you claim they exist.

Oh, and accusing me of really believing in God but running from being accountable to him is really not a way to get on my good side.  At best  I call myself an apatheist (I don't care much about whether there is a God and am less concerned about your beliefs)

And if you don't want me to think you're a liar, stop lying.

I will admit to being remiss on shredding AiG and ICR as they deserve. What would you like to look at?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2647
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote:One of the

jdude15 wrote:

One of the most commonly used arguments for evolution is the claim that evolution is still happening now. But where is the evidence for this, and why can't we see it happening? If evolution were still taking place in the present, then naturally, you would expect to be able to witness it happening, but we don't. If I'm wrong, can anybody give me a single shred of evidence to support this widely held claim?

 

I'll leave all the fun replies for the others to discuss this silly subject with you, but if you can't see the simplest examples of evolution happening in your every day life you aren't actually looking for the answers or you are ignorant.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote:My friend, I

jdude15 wrote:

My friend, I have done nothing and said nothing to you that warrants this kind of hateful treatment.

 

You're very quick with the word "hateful". Who's being defensive again ?

 

JC's link directly addressed your question (the answer to which you could have easily googled yourself, btw), but the link you posted as a reply, did not in any way refute the facts stated there.

This leads to a strong suggestion that you may not have even read the answers you were provided with.

Hence testiness.

 

Okay ? Because it would be really neat if we could have a thread without theists whining about "hate", just a few posts after they had their question answered. 

 

So did you have another question ? 


jdude15 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
 I would first like to

 I would first like to admit that using the word "hateful" was rather strong and out of place. I felt a little insulted at the time and I apologize if I made anyone else feel the same way. And you're right, I didn't attempt to refute the specific "facts" that were presented to me, but I also gave JC a link to an entire website with information that would have refuted those "facts" thoroughly and scientifically. It just so happens that nylonase is specifically refuted by an Answers in Genesis scientist on her blog. When you visit the AiG website, just type in the word "nylonase" in the search bar.

 

But if you want me to give some evidence, then how about the recent "junk DNA" discoveries? Or how about the fact that the entire history of evolution is strikingly devoid of any undisputed transitional fossil forms? Some evolutionists claim that evolution just goes too slowly for us to see it happening today, but even then, we should still be able to detect it in some way. And if the Big Bang is true, where did the first matter come from? Furthermore, mutations result in a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

 

 

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote:I would first

jdude15 wrote:
I would first like to admit that using the word "hateful" was rather strong and out of place. I felt a little insulted at the time and I apologize if I made anyone else feel the same way.

I'm sure he accepts your apology, but one more thing  : since JC's comment was more than reasonable, you had no reason to feel insulted. You chose to be anyway. We are very,very, VERY tired of those passive-aggressive techniques, so please, no more. Thank you. 

 

jdude15 wrote:
And you're right, I didn't attempt to refute the specific "facts"

The use of quotation marks here doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Would you care to explain ? 

 

jdude15 wrote:
that were presented to me, but I also gave JC a link to an entire website with information that would have refuted those "facts" thoroughly and scientifically. It just so happens that nylonase is specifically refuted by an Answers in Genesis scientist on her blog. When you visit the AiG website, just type in the word "nylonase" in the search bar.

As JC told you, he has looked at their stuff. This is why he gave you the talkorigins link, because their site directly refutes the claims made by AIG about nylonase. 

Look, I am going to do your googling for you one more time, okay. After that, you really need to do it yourself :

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04.html

There you go. 

If you can find an AIG claim that hasn't been refuted yet by Talkorigins, then please do let them know. It's what they're there for. 

  

jdude15 wrote:
then how about the recent "junk DNA" discoveries? Or how about the fact that the entire history of evolution is strikingly devoid of any undisputed transitional fossil forms? Some evolutionists claim that evolution just goes too slowly for us to see it happening today, but even then, we should still be able to detect it in some way. And if the Big Bang is true, where did the first matter come from? Furthermore, mutations result in a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

What did I just ask you ? 

*sigh*

Look, talkorigins was set up specifically to spare us this kind of time wasting. If you truly, honestly, can't find an answer to those questions on their site, then I will happily look it up for you.

But you need to at least try first.  

One caveat, though. If you can't find it, and I can, then that would prove that you didn't bother to look (finding the nylonase stuff took me exactly 2.7 seconds), and that you are purposely wasting our time. That would not be appreciated.

 

So please, do tell us what questions you might have left after a thorough search of the talkorigins site. 

Happy reading. Happy learning.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Hi jdude

jdude15 wrote:

 I mean no offense, but you seem very quick to defend yourself and your position as an atheist. Could it be that you are just insecure in your beliefs, and so you take it out on people like me (creationists, I mean)? 

 

My friend, I have done nothing and said nothing to you that warrants this kind of hateful treatment. You also tell me that Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research (two fine Christian apologetics ministries) are nothing but lies and fabrications. Okay, if you say so. And by the way, yes, I do look at talk-origins stuff. In fact, it is because I am educated about evolution that it is so easy for me to see the problems with it. Furthermore, as creationists, we are not trying to reinvent or change anything. We are trying to share God's Word and lead people to Christ. We also strive to expose the lies of evolution.

 

I'm very sorry you think I'm a liar, but I think you should examine yourself and see if you really do not believe in God or if you are just trying to find a way to remove Him from your life.

 

 

               first off  'answers in genises' is a religious site  Not a site for science; no matter how often they claim "science"  they ain't.   If you want to see evolution in action,  go look in a mirror then look at your parants & grandparants; you should see simlaritys but you are NOT identicle to daddy;  without evolution you would look identicle to dad, granddad great granddad, me, Adam and every other male on the face of the earth.     Now look at your hands, notice the index finger is much shorter then  your RING finger;  this is true of all men, now look at any females hand their  index fingers and ring fingers are the same length;  why is this? 200,000 years of evolution where males and females have done different work with their hands. Human children are today born with this little quirk, thats evolution.  

 

 

                What do I think of creationists?     Watch the video,  that is me in the grey suit, the guy in the bulliet proof hair do has a big pile of notes gleaned from 'answersingenises' .  From my experience in debates the person with the bigger pile of notes doesn't know has much of the topic as he thinks. I had 2 pages of note and I only read from them once.

 

                         http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFLmcDSlrqc  

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

jdude15 wrote:
I mean no offense, but you seem very quick to defend yourself and your position as an atheist. Could it be that you are just insecure in your beliefs, and so you take it out on people like me (creationists, I mean)?

For a fact the cretinist/creationist crazies started their luddite campaign by approaching the univeristies associated with religous founders and origins. They asked the universities to stop teaching evolution and start teaching Genesis. They were told, very impolitely, to fuck off. That was a century ago.

After that they started their ignorant campaigns against against public schools which has continued to this day with the likes of you.

So it all comes down to you uneducated types being rejected by the educated Christians and picking on children. You silly games have been addressed, fully answered for more than a century. Yet you folks flatly refuse to learn the subject and argue mainly from your own studied ignorance of the subject.

I have no intention of being polite as your intentions are not honest. The style of your posts clearly indicates this is far from the first time you have tried to stir things up. I would not be suprised to discover you have tried it here under a different handle. In fact I am quite certain you are the same clown you just said he was leaving less than 24 hours ago.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Jdude15,Please accept my

 Jdude15,

Please accept my apologies, your account was recently deleted in error.  Please feel free to sign back up as jdude15 or if for some reason that doesn't work please choose jdude16 so we can activate your account quickly.  I would have emailed you but it was deleted with your account.  Again I'm sorry, it was the product of attempting to delete spam and your account was deleted by accident.

 

In Rationality,

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote: 

 

 

Never saw that before. That pastor guy is for real ? That voice ! Did he really turn to the camera to plug "expelled" ? I'm afraid I stopped watching when I heard him say "Hitler" and "Darwin" in the same sentence. I hope you were allowed to point out that Mr H put "origin of the species" on his banned books list.

 

Anyway, you did a splendid job, considering you were playing against a stacked deck. I mean, this guy just expects you to give him (for free) a university education on several specific scientific fields, and you have to do this in however many seconds the moderator allows you to have, and if you somehow can't accomplish this impossible feat, he declares victory.

And people just let them get away with this. It's amazing. 


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
jdude15 wrote:But if you

jdude15 wrote:

But if you want me to give some evidence, then how about the recent "junk DNA" discoveries? Or how about the fact that the entire history of evolution is strikingly devoid of any undisputed transitional fossil forms? Some evolutionists claim that evolution just goes too slowly for us to see it happening today, but even then, we should still be able to detect it in some way. And if the Big Bang is true, where did the first matter come from? Furthermore, mutations result in a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

 

I thought you said you were educated about evolution? If you were, you'd know that we're ALL potentially transitional fossils.

I would like to challenge you. If you are educated about evolution, then please write a short paragraph on how it works (You don't have to believe it, just write it as if you were an educated atheist).. Please no copy pasting from others.

I'm pretty sure you will struggle with this, as if you could submit something without it being ripped to shreds here, you wouldn't be asking about 'transitions', 'not happening now', or any other such nonsense.

Do you take the challenge?

 

 

 

 


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 259
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

jdude15 wrote:

But if you want me to give some evidence, then how about the recent "junk DNA" discoveries? Or how about the fact that the entire history of evolution is strikingly devoid of any undisputed transitional fossil forms? Some evolutionists claim that evolution just goes too slowly for us to see it happening today, but even then, we should still be able to detect it in some way. And if the Big Bang is true, where did the first matter come from? Furthermore, mutations result in a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

 

I thought you said you were educated about evolution? If you were, you'd know that we're ALL potentially transitional fossils.

I would like to challenge you. If you are educated about evolution, then please write a short paragraph on how it works (You don't have to believe it, just write it as if you were an educated atheist).. Please no copy pasting from others.

I'm pretty sure you will struggle with this, as if you could submit something without it being ripped to shreds here, you wouldn't be asking about 'transitions', 'not happening now', or any other such nonsense.

Do you take the challenge?

 

 

 

 

Please do this! Also, your statement that the world is devoid of "transitional fossils", there are 2 good reasons for that. 

1. Every time a fossil is found, it gets classified and named. Don't mistake the fact that australopithecus afaraensis is named, with it not being a transitional fossil between a much simpler primate, and us. 

2. Everybody who says this would probably have a lot of trouble explaining what the scientific definition of species is, and what separates one from another. Knowing those two things goes a long way. 
 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3185
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous wrote:One of the

Anonymous wrote:

One of the most commonly used arguments for evolution is the claim that evolution is still happening now. But where is the evidence for this, and why can't we see it happening? If evolution were still taking place in the present, then naturally, you would expect to be able to witness it happening, but we don't. If I'm wrong, can anybody give me a single shred of evidence to support this widely held claim?

 

" There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true. The other is to refuse to accept what is true."--Soren Kierkegaard

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno