Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[NoGodaloud ?]

Francis Collins:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Re...tures.aspx

many of Collins' arguments for neo-Darwinism are highly disputed by the scientific evidence.

A Reply to Francis Collins’s Darwinian Arguments for Common Ancestry of Apes and Humans"

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/sho...hp/id/1468

“Though a Christian, Collins is a thorough-going Darwinist, implacably opposes ID, asserts that it has been discredited scientifically, yet gives little evidence of understanding ID’s main arguments and refuses to engage proponents of ID in public discourse.”

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution...ent-of-id/

http://www.discovery.org/a/4529

the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution – minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function – though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions. Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome – in effect, a Darwin of the gaps.

---

ok. no proof then. therefore, your position isnt more than a guess. Personal belief. Not more than that.

That isn't at ALL what I said. Read my post, otherewise you're merely presenting me with a strawman fallacy.

what you have said, is not what i asked you to present. It seems you are unable to do so, therefore, i cannot take you seriously. It seems you don't know why you believe in darwinism. Its just wishful thinking.

[Thor]

It seems you don't know why you believe in darwinism. Its just wishful thinking.

As opposed to believing in virgin births, miraculous healings, walking on water, feeding thousands of people with a basket of fish and dead bodies coming to life?

BTW, it's not "Darwinism", it's "Evolutionary Theory".

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

what you have said, is not what i asked you to present. It seems you are unable to do so, therefore, i cannot take you seriously. It seems you don't know why you believe in darwinism. Its just wishful thinking.

I don't believe in darwinism, I acknowledge evolutionary theory. Darwinism isn't a thing.
Second, you're the one who brought up the MIT paper and you requested of me the following:

"Please quote the part of the paper, which convinced you and gave you unquestionable proof, human speech was due and arose through gradual evolution."

And I answered you in two seporate ways. Just because you think you can define the parameters of the answer in a manner impossible to answer honestly doesn't mean I'm incorrect in the answer to your question.
As the giant robot in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy stated (paraphrasing from the movie here): "In order to get the answer you want, you're going to have to ask a better question."

I've otherwise given you an answer you've blatently ignored. Furthermore, what reason do I have to believe that even if I've given you even less disputable evidence than I have so far that you'll even accept it as much?
Otherwise, you're just giving all of us an exercise in futility by forcing everyone here to only be able to present answers to you that you've purposefully made impossible for us to answer in the manner that we can here, on the forums.

I also have no reason that this exercise is going to do any good because your perceptions on atheism, science, adn the processes and truths behind both are hopelessly skewed with the flavor of whatever inane kool-aid talking apoints you've been fed by people who expressly want to cling to their irrational and unfounded superstitions.

[NoGodaloud ?]

And I answered you in two seporate ways. Just because you think you can define the parameters of the answer in a manner impossible to answer honestly doesn't mean I'm incorrect in the answer to your question.

you presented this paper amongst others as proof for evolution of speech. So i am asking you to present the part of the paper, which essentially convinced you, evolution of speech is possible. If you cannot do that, you failed.

[Tiberius]

@NoGodaloud?

I'm sorry, but quotes from creationists are not "scientific evidence". If you think that Francis Collins' support for evolution is flawed because it is disputed by scientific evidence, please provide the evidence that disputes it.

Now you might understand why we don't take quotes from people (even in their fields of expertise) as gospel truth. You don't accept Francis Collins' quotes even though he is in the field of expertise of evolution, so now you know why we don't accept random quotes as evidence of anything other than opinion. Maybe now you'll look at the facts.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

you presented this paper amongst others as proof for evolution of speech. So i am asking you to present the part of the paper, which essentially convinced you, evolution of speech is possible. If you cannot do that, you failed.

Indeed you did and I told you that there wasn't a single part of that paper that convinced me and I gave you an explanation as to why. I have not failed. I've given you everything you asked for in your flawed question.

[NoGodaloud ?]

@NoGodaloud?

I'm sorry, but quotes from creationists are not "scientific evidence".

many creationists are scientists. and their papers are scientific.

in case of the answer i presented , the author

http://www.discovery.org/p/41

has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology . So he certainly is a specialist in the field, and knows as well, what he is talking about. Truth said, there are different standpoints, and just because one is proponent of creationism, that does not mean, that his aruments are not scientific.

If you think that Francis Collins' support for evolution is flawed because it is disputed by scientific evidence, please provide the evidence that disputes it.

http://www.discovery.org/a/4529

There is no evidence here that variations in their gene for EDA would (or even could) lead to the origin of a new species, much less to the new organs or major changes in body plans needed for macroevolution. The same can be said for the only other example cited by Collins, variations in disease-causing viruses, bacteria, and parasites.

Collins merely assumes that microevolution can be extrapolated to macroevolution. Despite seventy years of genetic research the extrapolation remains an assumption, and the distinction between micro- and macroevolution is no more “arbitrary” now than it was then.

---

you presented this paper amongst others as proof for evolution of speech. So i am asking you to present the part of the paper, which essentially convinced you, evolution of speech is possible. If you cannot do that, you failed.

Indeed you did and I told you that there wasn't a single part of that paper that convinced me and I gave you an explanation as to why. I have not failed. I've given you everything you asked for in your flawed question.

So why have you presented it then , in first place ? present a paper then, which carries the arguments which explain and convince you about evolution of human speech.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

So why have you presented it then , in first place ? present a paper then, which carries the arguments which explain and convince you about evolution of human speech.

because the entire paper is entirely focused on giving that answer to that specific question.

You may as well be asking me to prove where in a college textbook on the process of evolution proves evolution or asking me to tell you what instance in a DVD box set of one season of the simpsons thsat proves that they're an animated family. It's the entire damn work.

I conveyed this point inthe first post in reaponse to your quetion complete with my entire reasoning but you picked it apart and answered disparate components of my arguement in a manner that completely misrepresents my answer.

[Entropist]

Why is "splitting population Z into population X and Y and putting them under different selective pressures leads to speciation and eventually leads to major differences between the two species in phenotype or their physical traits" so easy for me to understand and believe? am i crazy?

It was simple enough even for Jacob to understand: Genesis 30:25-43


Here, from verse 37-43:

37 Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. 38 Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, 39 they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted. 40 Jacob set apart the young of the flock by themselves, but made the rest face the streaked and dark-colored animals that belonged to Laban. Thus he made separate flocks for himself and did not put them with Laban's animals. 41 Whenever the stronger females were in heat, Jacob would place the branches in the troughs in front of the animals so they would mate near the branches, 42 but if the animals were weak, he would not place them there. So the weak animals went to Laban and the strong ones to Jacob. 43 In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

[Minimalist]

In this way the man grew exceedingly prosperous and came to own large flocks, and maidservants and menservants, and camels and donkeys.

No wonder slave holders thought they were god's gift to the world!