zarathustra wrote:Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty
are you absolutely certain about this?
All life shows a FUNDAMENTAL UNITY in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
what the hell do you mean 'unity'??? Different species aren't unified because they can't breed together, which is why evolution is rubbish. You can keep breeding the best strains of cows for millions of years under different selection pressures and you'll still end up with cows, not giraffes, this is why evolution is rubbish.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
what the fuck are you talking about? This is so vague and meaningless. Each species has their own unqiue gene pool in which variations exist, and which only this gene pool can be used to breed the same species. Those variations don't 'morph' the species into another, they're just variations of the same species and they always will be. As such gene pools of species cannot be breeded together, which is why evolution is rubbish.
Different lines of EVIDENCE give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
no we get the same idiots as you who spew pseudo-intellectual rubbish
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
HA! which ones??? Have you READ
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com ? It debunks those so called transitional forms for the rubbish that they are. And that famous 'reptile bird' what it is? That's a forgery. There's only 6 of those ever known in the world even though if it's a transitional form there should be millions, and only 2 of them have those wings, which look like chicken wings. There's many anomalies in that fossil, and it's still genetically and biologically impossible to breed two different species. Those fossils infact are just the same thing as another small dinosaur. Some people in Germany decided to make millions (which they did) by adding chicken feathers to them.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and INCONSISTENT WITH SUDDEN CREATION.
no they don't because those fossils don't show transitional forms because it's impossible to breed together two entirely different species.
Many organisms show rudimentary, VESTIGIAL characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
HA! If they don't need those, then why the hell would they keep them??? Seems counter to natural selection to me. This is like when evolutionists said the whale is proof because it had a 'pelvis' and thus it's a vestigial structure, when in fact it needs that pelvis to fuck.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
pftttt. Atavisms aren't characters of distant ancestors, they're still just variations in that gene pool that come up now and again. A 6th toe isn't an atavism, that's just a little booboo in the DNA. once again, you missed the point that 'atavism' is from 'PREVIOUS ANCESTORS' which means, the same gene pool and the same species, no 'morphing' of previous species into new ones.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
probably because they need those as embryos. This is like the 'gills' fallacy of the human embryo, when it's not even gills but something else for some other function I don't remember now.
The distribution of species is CONSISTENT with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes. Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
too bad all this is no proof whatsoever of species morphing into newer ones, or cows popping out giraffes. Marsupials are limited to Australia because they can't swim. Those same species are genetically close because they have a small gene pool on a small island, thus concentrating the gene pool, this isn't evolution. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes what?????
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
oh jeez, this is the Classical Piss Poor Argument for Evolution hypothesis. Yeah it 'predicts' which means it's probably wrong. Similarity in structures can be used to support the hypothesis of 1 creator with 1 substance that created everything. Those aren't 'new' structures that have 'adapted' from older structures, they were ALWAYS like that. Human hands, bat wings, whale flippers, and more forelimbs are not that similar whatsoever. They're bone structure, muscle, and countless other things are entirely different. And still, this doesn't prove that species create entirely new ones. What's funny is that evolutionists don't even know the direct lineage of these things. What came first? The whale started hanging out on the beach, so it grew arms from its flippers?? Jeez it was able to breathe that easily? Or...the bat, came about when some creature started flapping his arms trying to fly? And eventually the one with the wing arms flew?? or, the whale started running like a horse, and eventually adapted and miraculously turned his flippers into strong horse legs???
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
ha, are you sure about this?? No wonder evolutionists think that humans' genes are 99% identical. Yet the science says otherwise, humans can be 10 to 12% genetically different from each other!! :
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/ ... N=39304975
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
no, it shows that you're a blithering idiot who thinks he knows what he's talking about. different structures are often recruited what are you talking about??? Do you still deny that different species cannot breed together???
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
yeah cause we were ALWAYS LIKE THAT, wtf is your stupidity not seeing this? This is not proof of evolution, you're merely stating the obvious.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
anddd this proves evolution how???
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
what pattern of inheritance???
Speciation has been observed.
actually it hasn't. Not one bit. It has been shown however, that when species are divided into smaller groups, those small groups have increasingly smaller gene pools due to their small size, resulting in inbreeding, which progressively makes them weaker and sicker. Hardly 'evolution.'
from
http://www.sedin.org/propeng/shatter.htm
the 13 "species" of ground finch on the island are in fact members of the same species who breed fertile offspring and who differ merely in diet and beak shape.
Darwinist make many claims of observed speciation. These claims vanish when examined closely and are seen as no more than pseudo- speciation. In some cases, it is merely subspecific variation being passed off as speciation. In others it is cases of freak degenerative mutations which play no evolutionary role.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
no it doesn't. Variation occurs in each species according to that specific gene pool of the species, and these variations don't at all have functional change that turns arms into wings. You can breed cows for millions of years in every selection pressure and they will STILL breed cows, not giraffes, not whales, not bats.
For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago.
or maybe it was always able to do that?
Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies.
links please.
The evidence is EXTENSIVE and CONSISTENT, and it points UNAMBIGIOUSLY to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than FACTS.
actually no it wouldn't. It would be very smart, intelligent, honest, and clear-headed, and much too humorous at that!! To know that these 'facts' are nothing but the opposite. I'll say it again: you can keep breeding cows for millions of years and you'll end up with cows. Maybe you can try breeding them with whales or bats, when you do tell me the results.