Proof evolution is real?

[CalmWind]

Proof lizard evolves to be herbivore

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/a...island-darwin/

That's micro evolution, aka adaptation. They are still Italian wall lizards. They just differ in their phenotype expression, which helps them survive.

In fact, natural adaptation was FIRST proposed by a Christian scientist, Edward Blythe, and he proposed this BEFORE Darwin. Blythe proposed that God gave all animals the ability to adapt to new environments, but that they would still remain "their kind", in a general sense.

So, if we look at dogs... and how the Wolf was manipulated into all of these different dog breeds..... while there are hundreds of different breeds of dogs... in the end, they are all dogs. DNA is very malleable in this fashion....



Evolution, as a theory, though, says that the wall lizard can become a Bird, given enough time. This is the part that has never been proven.

[kingmanaverage]

That's micro evolution, aka adaptation.

They are still Italian wall lizards. They just differ in their phenotype expression, which helps them survive.

In fact, natural adaptation was FIRST proposed by a Christian scientist, Edward Blythe, and he proposed this BEFORE Darwin. Blythe proposed that God gave all animals the ability to adapt to new environments, but that they would still remain "their kind", in a general sense.

So, if we look at dogs... and how the Wolf was manipulated into all of these different dog breeds..... while there are hundreds of different breeds of dogs... in the end, they are all dogs. DNA is very malleable in this fashion....



Evolution, as a theory, though, says that the wall lizard can become a Bird, given enough time. This is the part that has never been proven.

If you believe a lizard can evolve into a bird then you don't understand the concept of evolution. One species cannot ever evolve into another species, I.e the above.

The principles of evolution do however state that over the course of millions of years, a lizard might be able to evolve traits which allow it to fly, similar to a bird (convergent evolution).

Furthermore many species of dog barely look anything like wolves, nor do they behave similarly, and in some cases are unable to interbreed breed with them, which kinda disproves the remain " their kind' in a general sense theory.

[dakensta]

How can you embrace atheism, and not even know the most basic answer of Judeo-Christianity?

I don't need to know everything about Harry Potter to know Harry Potter is make-believe. Like that.

[Sakeoe]

That's micro evolution, aka adaptation. They are still Italian wall lizards. They just differ in their phenotype expression, which helps them survive.

In fact, natural adaptation was FIRST proposed by a Christian scientist, Edward Blythe, and he proposed this BEFORE Darwin. Blythe proposed that God gave all animals the ability to adapt to new environments, but that they would still remain "their kind", in a general sense.

So, if we look at dogs... and how the Wolf was manipulated into all of these different dog breeds..... while there are hundreds of different breeds of dogs... in the end, they are all dogs. DNA is very malleable in this fashion....



Evolution, as a theory, though, says that the wall lizard can become a Bird, given enough time. This is the part that has never been proven.

If you think developing a completely new gut structure and transforming from complete carnivore to complete herbivore falls under "phenotype" then this discussion is already done.

A lizard wont become a bird because they followed completely different evolutionary tracks. See phylogenetic bracketing.

[Austanian]

Amazes me how anti-evolution people can be without knowing anything about evolution.

[Mr Beer]

Amazes me how anti-evolution people can be without knowing anything about evolution.

Willful ignorance is the common MO for evolution deniers.

You see people who post for years and years denying evolution *cough* Calm Wind *cough* who have had the basics explained to them dozens of times and they will still make the most ignorant statements possible. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it must be deliberate.

[CalmWind]

Except that is not true. We know for a fact, based on genetics and mutation rate, as well as diversity of genes, that there is no way we came from a bottleneck of two. The only way to reconcile this fact is to claim Adam and Eve's children mated with monkeys, or they were metaphors, or God intervened and allowed extra genetic mutations to spread just so more variety might exist, a totally convenient solution.

Basically, none of the science backs up the Pentateuch, which is the foundation of the whole story. Therefore, it is easy to dismiss as myth, just like all the other myths. It might be a binding, order bringing element to society, but it is still false.

Actually, we didn't come from just a bottleneck of two humans created by God. Scientists trying to disprove the Bible by claiming that... are uneducated on the Bible. Unless you have studied the Bible, nobody should be commenting on it. But hey, some scientists have their human bias and personal agenda against God, so what can ya do.


What I'm about to tell you comes directly from the book of Genesis, chapter 6.


There is something called the Nephilim. These are fallen angels, that left their habitation, and came to Earth, took a physical form... and took human female for mates and created mutant hybrids and others. This event spread throughout the earth, until ALL flesh was corrupted.

The famous giant Goliath, that David killed with a rock? Yeah, that Goliath is a descendant of the Nephilim.

So, no, our DNA is not just from the two that God created. There's a mix in there, and that's straight from the Bible.

This story is told in the book of Genesis. It's one of the reasons for the Flood of Noah.


Here is a clip from Genesis, chapter 6 :

1 In time, when men began to multiply on earth, and daughters were born to them,

2 the sons of God (angels) saw that the daughters of men were attractive; and they took wives for themselves, whomever they chose.


4 The N’filim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; these were the ancient heroes, men of renown.

[CalmWind]

Like God has been proven

Is it possible that you live in a Universe where God exists, AND it's not possible to prove He exists unless He allows you to do that?

The answer is yes.

Also, the universe is only 6000 years old, the earth is flat, and the big bang never happened.

The Bible doesn't speak as to the age of the earth. That's what some denominations of Christians believe by themselves, that's on them. You're projecting the belief of those people onto the Bible, which is not accurate.

Same thing with the flat comment. The Bible never says the earth is flat. The first line of Isaiah 40:22 reads, “It is God who sits above the circle of the earth.” Some have argued from this that Scripture teaches the earth to be a flat disc, rather than a globe. However, even if the original Hebrew is correctly understood to refer to a circle, this doesn’t necessarily indicate something flat; a sphere appears as a circle when seen from above—and indeed from whatever direction it is viewed. Moreover, there is good reason to believe that the word translated ‘circle’ might be better.

The Big Bang was first proposed by a practicing Christian.

You have to reject some fundamental element cosmology, meteorology, biology, geology, chemistry, physics, genetics, etc just for the chance of belief in something you cannot see, feel, or experience, just for eternal happiness if you don't sleep with women and/or do "bad things", and love God for being great and wonderful to humankind. It is a hard sell; this is coming from a long time Catholic who almost became a priest and knows a decent amount about the bible, metaphysics, and apologetics.

Only people who have very little understanding of science, or a huge bias against God, make that claim. Nothing in science disproves the Bible.

In fact, the Bible has been proven to be the most accurate source of historical information in the world.



The fossil record is an interpretation by people who are making guesses. They are routinely proven to be wrong. Anthropology does not always provide hard, scientific, factual information. I can point out dozens of instances where some idiot with a college piece of paper published a study that was accepted by the scientific community, on relation to a new fossil find, only to be disproven later. If this happens so much, it is not fact. It's guesswork. This is not hard science.

[CalmWind]

If you believe a lizard can evolve into a bird then you don't understand the concept of evolution. One species cannot ever evolve into another species, I.e the above.

The principles of evolution do however state that over the course of millions of years, a lizard might be able to evolve traits which allow it to fly, similar to a bird (convergent evolution).

Furthermore many species of dog barely look anything like wolves, nor do they behave similarly, and in some cases are unable to interbreed breed with them, which kinda disproves the remain " their kind' in a general sense theory.

If you think developing a completely new gut structure and transforming from complete carnivore to complete herbivore falls under "phenotype" then this discussion is already done.

A lizard wont become a bird because they followed completely different evolutionary tracks. See phylogenetic bracketing.

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-became-birds/

Scientists believe that Reptilia (of which lizards belong to) are considered to have evolved into birds.

This is the point I was making. Don't play semantics.



And yes, re: the Italian wall lizards, it's just a different phenotypic expression. A lot of animals are omnivores. Lizards switching their diets is not that amazing. Humans probably underwent that change at one point too. We were still human. In fact, the Bible says that God first created Man to eat a vegetarian diet. It was only AFTER the fall of Man, that we changed, and God said we can now eat meat too.

I'd suspect that the human gut also undertook a change in diet, with the digestive system changing to support that new diet. It happens.

[BrosefMengele]

Lol @ calmwind

[provetheclaim12]

Hearsay. "everyone" saying so is not proof.

Prove to me your claim.

[provetheclaim12]

No, you asked someone here to be a claimant and so far, no one really has taken you up on your idiot offer. So, if there is no claimant, there is no claim.

I am up for intelligent games, but you are a dumb-ass. I'm out.

People in this thread have claimed evolution is real. Now prove it!

[provetheclaim12]

Proof lizard evolves to be herbivore

Prove to me the claims made in that article.

[provetheclaim12]

Except that is not true. We know for a fact, based on genetics and mutation rate, as well as diversity of genes, that there is no way we came from a bottleneck of two. The only way to reconcile this fact is to claim Adam and Eve's children mated with monkeys, or they were metaphors, or God intervened and allowed extra genetic mutations to spread just so more variety might exist, a totally convenient solution.

Basically, none of the science backs up the Pentateuch, which is the foundation of the whole story. Therefore, it is easy to dismiss as myth, just like all the other myths. It might be a binding, order bringing element to society, but it is still false.

It's easy to claim "none of the science backs up...", "or we know for a fact", or "science disproves", etc. But these are all claims, and so prove to me your claims!

[Austanian]

It's easy to claim "none of the science backs up...", "or we know for a fact", or "science disproves", etc. But these are all claims, and so prove to me your claims!

A person would have better luck explaining it to a rock. Low quality troll is low quality.

[provetheclaim12]

A person would have better luck explaining it to a rock. Low quality troll is low quality.

As they say, "that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Hence, dismissed!

[provetheclaim12]

The definition of a claim is as follows:

"state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof."

The statement "evolution is real" is a claim, and the claimant must provide evidence or proof for that claim.

[provetheclaim12]

Like God has been proven. Also, the universe is only 6000 years old, the earth is flat, and the big bang never happened. You have to reject some fundamental element cosmology, meteorology, biology, geology, chemistry, physics, genetics, etc just for the chance of belief in something you cannot see, feel, or experience, just for eternal happiness if you don't sleep with women and/or do "bad things", and love God for being great and wonderful to humankind. It is a hard sell; this is coming from a long time Catholic who almost became a priest and knows a decent amount about the bible, metaphysics, and apologetics.

Explain this, the fossil record of humanity:

That's a picture that anyone can draw, that is not evidence. That is a testimony of the fossil record, a claim of the record.

Not evidence!

[dakensta]

Prove to me your claim.

I have no need to until you prove to me that the burden of proof is on the claimant, then I'll prove my claim. Pathetic.

[Skythes]

Evolution, as a theory, though, says that the wall lizard can become a Bird, given enough time. This is the part that has never been proven.

This can never be "proven". No scientist says that a wall lizard can become a bird, only that the two shared a common ancestor. And the process from the common ancestor to bird took longer than humans have been around, so naturally it "has never been proven" under experimental conditions. Luckily we have the fossil record, incomplete as it is, to show that changes in animals have occurred over time.

Its beyond me how creationists can rationalize nitpicking things like minor fossil gaps and inaccuracies in scientific dating methods, but somehow agree to the idea of two of every species fitting on to an ark, no less an ark built by desert goat herders, pre-metal ones at that. Give me a break!

Remember, science by nature is always under revision while the holy books are supposed to be complete and eternal. Holes and inconsistencies in science are always being considered, tested, challenged. The professors of holy books on the other hand always have to play catch up, reinterpreting their verses with the latest scientific discoveries in mind to stay relevant, its sad really.

People should be content in their faith and not feel the need to desperately rationalize it to non-believers.

[provetheclaim12]

i have no need to until you prove to me that the burden of proof is on the claimant, then i'll prove my claim. Pathetic.

hahahahahahahahahahaah

[provetheclaim12]

Remember, science by nature is always under revision while the holy books are supposed to be complete and eternal. Holes and inconsistencies in science are always being considered, tested, challenged. The professors of holy books on the other hand always have to play catch up, reinterpreting their verses with the latest scientific discoveries in mind to stay relevant, its sad really.

If professors of holy books have to continually re-interpret scriptural verses in order to conform them to latest scientific discoveries, then theology is also, like science, under revision.

[Sakeoe]

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-became-birds/

Scientists believe that Reptilia (of which lizards belong to) are considered to have evolved into birds.

This is the point I was making. Don't play semantics.



And yes, re: the Italian wall lizards, it's just a different phenotypic expression. A lot of animals are omnivores. Lizards switching their diets is not that amazing. Humans probably underwent that change at one point too. We were still human. In fact, the Bible says that God first created Man to eat a vegetarian diet. It was only AFTER the fall of Man, that we changed, and God said we can now eat meat too.

I'd suspect that the human gut also undertook a change in diet, with the digestive system changing to support that new diet. It happens.

Lets be clear about something. Reptiles didn't become birds. Reptiles are an outdated clade based on no longer accurate believes. We now know that reptiles aren't monophyletic. Dinosaurs, and birds, fall under the clade Archosaurs. And lizards, do not. As such, lizards never became birds, don't have the inherent traits to become birds, and are in no way or shape related any closer to birds than we are to fish.

As for gut change. Herbivores tend to be intrinsically omnivores, as digesting meat is easier than plant matter. Their gut structure generally is already prepared for this. The other way around however, to become a herbivore starting as pure carnivore is far rarer as their gut structure isn't prepared for the consumption of plant matter.

[Austanian]

As they say, "that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Hence, dismissed!

There is mountains of evidence. The fact that you choose to ignore it has nothing to do with its existence.

Calmwind just fixed the genetic problem of the Adam and Eve story by tying it to fallen angels and Noah's ark...

[dakensta]

hahahahahahahahahahaah

prove it.

[TheScapeGOAT]

Some dude went to some island with birds or some chit Idk.

[Ten_Hearts]

As they say, "that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."

Hence, dismissed!

I mean what are looking for? Books on the subject, scientific experiments, what standard of evidence are you looking for? Because it is rather disingenuous to come here asking for evidence on evolution when it is readily apparent you haven't attempted to read basic articles let alone publications on the subject. If you were serious about learning on the subject you would go to the local library and check out a book on the subject.

[provetheclaim12]

There is mountains of evidence. The fact that you choose to ignore it has nothing to do with its existence.

Prove to me your claim that there are mountains of evidence.

[provetheclaim12]

prove it.

Don't tell me what to do.

[Austanian]

Prove to me your claim that there are mountains of evidence.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...=1&oi=scholart

Derp. That is why we wont play. You can't even admit something that takes 2 seconds to find is real.

Had you decided to focus your argument on a specific topic or methodology you would get people biting on your troll thread. As it is you just look to be the winner of the "Ate the most paint chips" award.