quote:

Given all the empirical evidence that has been gathered for evolution over 150+ years, its not likely to be falsified unless there is a major major discovery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11

quote:

Given all the empirical evidence that has been gathered for evolution over 150+ years, its not likely to be falsified unless there is a major major discovery.

What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.

The best evidence evolutionists can claim for UCD is the consensus among those who agree with them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
You probably wont like the source, but there is no better place that I have found that is such a thorough, concise reference on the topic. Spend some time reading it. Even if you don't trust talk origins, they do cite their sources, and you can feel free to look at them. If your going to argue against evolution no matter what, you might as well spend some time there and learn their arguments.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/default.html

quote:

I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution.

quote:

That probably is largly due to your a priori refusal to take any evidence seriously or open-mindedly.

quote:

It would probably help in your understand if you let go of the popular notion that by definition evolution = naturalism/atheism and simply view the concept of evolution segregated from the topic of theology.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:nothingman

quote:

That probably is largly due to your a priori refusal to take any evidence seriously or open-mindedly.

If that be true you should have absolutely no difficulty in presenting some empirical evidence.

quote:

It would probably help in your understand if you let go of the popular notion that by definition evolution = naturalism/atheism and simply view the concept of evolution segregated from the topic of theology.

I suppose ignoring the truth would make it easier to accept evolution, but I am not inclined to go that route.

So far this thread is on par. Claims that the empirical evidence is there along with accusations that I just refuse to see it, but NONE presented to prove me wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11

quote:

Given all the empirical evidence that has been gathered for evolution over 150+ years, its not likely to be falsified unless there is a major major discovery.

What empirical evidence? I hear this claim over and over yet I have never seen a single piece of empirical evidence that supports evolution. Please enlighten me.

quote:

If you've never seen a fossil, Uncle, a visit to your local natural history museum should solve that problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nothingman
That probably is largly due to your a priori refusal to take any evidence seriously or open-mindedly. There is plenty of literature out there that you could easily read.

quote:

I provided you with a link with enough information to keep anyone busy for days... I could type it all out for you here, but what would be the point?

quote:

Take a look at it, tell us where its wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
That has already been done by people more qualified than I am. Look HERE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11

quote:

I provided you with a link with enough information to keep anyone busy for days... I could type it all out for you here, but what would be the point?

I have already read a lot of the nonsense at talkorigins, but didn’t find the least bit of empirical evidence supporting evolution. Maybe you could give me a specific cite from talkorigins providing empirical support for evolution that I must have overlooked.

quote:

Take a look at it, tell us where its wrong.

That has already been done by people more qualified than I am. Look HERE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
That has already been done by people more qualified than I am. Look HERE.

It doesn't take a qualified expert to dismantle UCD. The point is that they can't expect us to refute entire websites at a time and when we do, they just bring up more links that we have to keep on refuting. It's too time consuming. If they have anything specific they want to discuss within the links they provide, let them bring it up.

quote:

Pick just about any article at random from True Origins and you'll more than likely find it written by a quack with mail order diploma in an unrelated field from an unaccredited school.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey

ORIGINAL:drj11

quote:

Pick just about any article at random from True Origins and you'll more than likely find it written by a quack with mail order diploma in an unrelated field from an unaccredited school.

Rather than trying to reduce this thread into a contest of insults why don’t you comply with my request for something specific from talkorigins?
As I have already said I have looked through talkorigins and NOT seen ANY empirical support for evolution.
If it really were there as you claim it would make more sense to cite it specifically than launch into a barrage of personal insults on those who have refuted their articles.
I think you have chosen the insult route because the empirical evidence you claim talkorigins provides is not really there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Again, look at the link I sent you, it was to a specific cite from talk origins.

quote:


A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Look at the link that unclemonkey gave you, read it. Trueorigins refutes some talkorigins sites.

From your URL

quote:


A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#morphological_vestiges

This is not how darwin defined it. More evidence of goal posts being moved. They find out that many of the alleged vestigial organs were more useful than Darwin predicted so instead of admitting that UCD is wrong, they simply re - define the word.

I don't see how two organisms having "similar" structures and one having a different or "lessor" function than another is evidence that they share a common ancestor. Perhaps the different structures were designed for different purposes and on one organism it wasn't designed to do as much since it's not as necessary for it. The notion that they got the structures from a common ancestor merely assumes that they share a common ancestor, the structures themselves are not evidence of a common ancestor.

quote:


Darwin in fact emphasizes that vestiges can be functional and gives several examples:

"Useful organs, however little they may be developed, unless we have reason to suppose that they were formerly more highly developed, ought not to be considered as rudimentary." (Darwin 1859, emphasis added)

"An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given." (Darwin 1859 [see text]; also Darwin 1872, p. 602, emphasis added)

"Rudimentary organs, on the other hand, are either quite useless, such as teeth which never cut through the gums, or almost useless, such as the wings of an ostrich, which serve merely as sails." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)

"... an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Rudimentary organs are eminently variable; and
this is partly intelligible, as they are useless, or nearly useless,
and consequently are no longer subjected to natural selection.

quote:


A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms.

quote:


"... an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

Darwin defined rudimentary/vestigial organs as[

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
Rudimentary organs are eminently variable; and
this is partly intelligible, as they are useless, or nearly useless,
and consequently are no longer subjected to natural selection.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man.html

The site you gave defined it as

quote:


A vestige is defined, independently of evolutionary theory, as a reduced and rudimentary structure compared to the same complex structure in other organisms.

This is not how darwin defined it.

quote:


"... an organ rendered, during changed habits of life, useless or injurious for one purpose, might easily be modified and used for another purpose." (Darwin 1872, p. 603)

In this situation the organ would no longer be vestigial (according to Darwins definition. As long as it is subject to natural selection it is not vestigial). The notion that the organ was once useful then became useless and now is useful with a different functions once again is an assumption, it's not evidence for UCD. Perhaps the organs current use is what it was designed to do. Why don't you read the true origins site instead of simply copying and pasting stuff from talkorigins. Or should I just start copying and pasting stuff from opposing sites?

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11
TrueOrigins is a joke. Read a few posts up for examples why.

quote:

Again, look at the link I sent you,

quote:

Seems the majority of the time someone trots out an article from TrueO, the author turns out to be a mail order phd credential hoarding fraud.

quote:

ORIGINAL: unclemonkey
I did. Here is a quote from it.
“Humans are classified by taxonomists as apes; one of the defining derived characters of apes is the lack of an external tail. However, human embryos initially develop tails in development.” – http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny_ex4 (emphasis mine)

That’s not exactly what I consider “empirical evidence”. It is more in line with “fraud”. It is a perfect example of why I just don’t consider anything at talkorigins as worth reading.
HERE is a much better explanation of evolution and human embryos.

quote:

Seems the majority of the time someone trots out an article from TrueO, the author turns out to be a mail order phd credential hoarding fraud.
Character assassination does nothing other than demonstrate your bigotry.
I didn’t need to slander the people at talkorigins to make my point. All I had to do to demonstrate their fraudulence was quote them.