What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Will Bouwman]

Then what you call "The Evolutionism story" is not the theory of evolution. The latter requires no fossils at all.

It requires a billion stages and variations...

Where do you get that figure from?

...for which the fossils are presented as if they are potential evidence...

They are actual evidence. Either, as you appear to believe, for massive fraud and incompetence, satanic deception, evolution or some other hypothesis.

...though the fossil record does not represent anything remotely close to the numbers of transitional phases posited by the theory.

How many fossils do you suppose have ever been found? How many studied by scientists?

There is no observation you can make that could differentiate between a "fixed" species and a "species-in-transition"; you simply prefer to see it your way.

Oh, there certainly is. "In transition" would imply multitudinous intermediate stages, none of which we do, in fact, observe.

How do you think an intermediate stage would look different to a fixed species?

We should see vast numbers of these, given the Evolution story's insistence on progressive transformation over millions or billions of years. Genetic variation should be everywhere...

It is.

...and there should really be no remaining species boundaries at all, by the posited time.

What does that follow from?

We don't find ANY of the expected multitudinous transitional forms, but rather a world full of fixed species. This is one way we know the theory is rubbish.

By "we", you mean you. What I see is precisely "multitudinous transitional forms". They look exactly the same as your "fixed species" look to you. The same data is evidence for two different hypotheses. The difference is how we choose to interpret what we see; that and the fact that you straw man the argument and show your version of "Evolutionism" to be rubbish; not hard to do, because it is. The actual theory of evolution is well supported, you just happen to prefer an alternative.

[Age]

My guiding principle is 'don't be a shit', with the caveat 'to anyone who doesn't deserve it'.

In other words, if you do NOT FOLLOW, and do NOT BELIEVE, "will bouwman's" BELIEFS', then "will bouwman" 'justifies', to "itself", only, that it can be a so-called 'shit' TO you.

[Age]

Well, let's try to take that seriously.

I already do.

Sure. But what I mean is, "Let's try to make that explicit, so we can understand it in specific. "Deserve" and "don't be a shit" are not merely underdetermined but so vague as to be uninformative. I would like to understand what each means, in the context of your moral beliefs.

'I' would like to understand WHY 'you' BELIEVE, ABSOLUTELY, that God has A penis, in the context of YOUR BELIEFS.

Will 'you' DO what 'you' EXPECT 'others' TO DO?

If no, then WHY NOT?

WHY are you EXPECTING OF 'others' what 'you', "yourself", will NOT EVEN DO?

[Age]

Then what you call "The Evolutionism story" is not the theory of evolution. The latter requires no fossils at all.

It requires a billion stages and variations...

Where do you get that figure from?

...for which the fossils are presented as if they are potential evidence...

They are actual evidence. Either, as you appear to believe, for massive fraud and incompetence, satanic deception, evolution or some other hypothesis.

...though the fossil record does not represent anything remotely close to the numbers of transitional phases posited by the theory.

How many fossils do you suppose have ever been found? How many studied by scientists?

There is no observation you can make that could differentiate between a "fixed" species and a "species-in-transition"; you simply prefer to see it your way.

Oh, there certainly is. "In transition" would imply multitudinous intermediate stages, none of which we do, in fact, observe.

How do you think an intermediate stage would look different to a fixed species?

We should see vast numbers of these, given the Evolution story's insistence on progressive transformation over millions or billions of years. Genetic variation should be everywhere...

It is.

...and there should really be no remaining species boundaries at all, by the posited time.

What does that follow from?

We don't find ANY of the expected multitudinous transitional forms, but rather a world full of fixed species. This is one way we know the theory is rubbish.

By "we", you mean you. What I see is precisely "multitudinous transitional forms". They look exactly the same as your "fixed species" look to you. The same data is evidence for two different hypotheses. The difference is how we choose to interpret what we see; that and the fact that you straw man the argument and show your version of "Evolutionism" to be rubbish; not hard to do, because it is. The actual theory of evolution is well supported, you just happen to prefer an alternative.

"immanuel can" has become AN EXPERT in the 'art' of DEFLECTION, and DECEPTION.

One only has to just LOOK AT what "immanuel can" has CREATED, and CAUSED, here. it started a whole thread in order to DEFLECT AWAY FROM its BELIEF that 'A male gendered Thing' CREATED ABSOLUTELY EVERY thing, ALL AT ONCE IN ONE MOMENT, and to GET others talking ABOUT ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

LOL 'There are not MORE fossils. Therefore, evolution is NOT real'.

And, the worst part is SOME ACTUALLY got HOOKED BY "immanuel can's" TROLLING, here.

[Age]

The word, 'evolution', itself, more or less just refers to CHANGE, itself, or more specifically 'the CHANGING of 'matter', itself', into different shapes and/or forms, or what some might just call into different species and/or to the differences within species.

Now, if ANY one has NOT YET just RECOGNIZED and NOTICED the DIFFERENCES WITHIN the 'human species' over the length of period one CONSIDERS the species 'human' has been around for, then they are either BLIND or DEAF, of just do NOT WANT TO SEE and HEAR the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES, TO others.

For MOST PEOPLE the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES AMONG or WITHIN the species 'human' IS ENOUGH 'evidence' and/or 'proof' of 'human evolution', WITH 'Evolution', Itself.

ONCE AGAIN, EVERY thing, besides 'matter', 'space', and the Universe, Itself, was ONCE 'created', (from at least two other things, literally, coming-together), AND, EVERY one of 'those, CREATED, physical things', which came INTO Existence, EXIST, and then EXISTS, CHANGED IN SHAPE and IN FORM, ALONG 'the way'.

[Immanuel Can]

Then what you call "The Evolutionism story" is not the theory of evolution. The latter requires no fossils at all.

It requires a billion stages and variations...

Where do you get that figure from?

Evolutionists. They say it takes billions of years for one species to "evolve into" another. That's how they hope to make the impossible seem possible: by stretching the timeframe until it can no longer be accounted for, as if that would help.

...for which the fossils are presented as if they are potential evidence...

They are actual evidence.

Not for what Evolution claims happened. The evidence for that would be millions of transitional forms, either in the fossil evidence or now, or more likely, both.

...though the fossil record does not represent anything remotely close to the numbers of transitional phases posited by the theory.

How many fossils do you suppose have ever been found?

Not a concern. No matter how many there were, the number of transitional ones should vastly exceed the non-transitional ones.

How do you think an intermediate stage would look different to a fixed species?

It would show inter-species morphing, of course. We'd be neck deep in half-man-half-ape specimens, both living and dead. But of the dead, Evolutionists are scraping together "fossils" from bits of jawbone and leftovers of midgets with rickets; and of living transitional forms, we have not one: no Java-style men, or Piltdown-like men, or semi-Neanderthals...just modern humanoids, and lots of them, all interfertile, all of exactly the same species.

That also requires explaining by the Evolutionists: what magical force keeps us from having any transitional forms in the present world? If Evolution's been going on for millions or billions of years, we should be awash in them. In fact, it should be much harder to find a live, fully-formed modern humanoid then a semi-formed pre-modern one.

We should see vast numbers of these, given the Evolution story's insistence on progressive transformation over millions or billions of years. Genetic variation should be everywhere...

It is.

It ain't. What we see is fixed species, not variations between species.

...and there should really be no remaining species boundaries at all, by the posited time.

What does that follow from?

From trying to find ways to believe the Evolutionists myths.

We don't find ANY of the expected multitudinous transitional forms, but rather a world full of fixed species. This is one way we know the theory is rubbish.

By "we", you mean you.

No. I mean, open your eyes. The lack of evidence is glaring.

What I see is precisely "multitudinous transitional forms". They look exactly the same as your "fixed species" look to you.

Then they wouldn't be all of the same stage of development as the rest of their kind. If they are, you have to explain what makes that possible.

The same data is evidence for two different hypotheses.

No, the data's against the Evolutionary hypothesis, a hypothesis that would tell us to expect abundant, constant transitions between species for long, long, long periods of time. The data doesn't suggest that happened at all.

[Will Bouwman]

Evolutionists. They say it takes billions of years for one species to "evolve into" another.

Well, given that the first mammal is reckoned to have appeared about 225 million years ago, and that every mammal currently alive, including you, evolved from that creature, no they don't.
If it suits you to believe that God created Adam and Eve, that is entirely your prerogative. You do nothing to support your case though, by attacking a straw man.

...the number of transitional ones should vastly exceed the non-transitional ones.

They do. When was the last time you saw a T Rex or a mastodon walking past?
If you wish to falsify evolution, you first need to understand it.

[Immanuel Can]

Evolutionists. They say it takes billions of years for one species to "evolve into" another.

Well, given that the first mammal is reckoned to have appeared about 225 million years ago, and that every mammal currently alive, including you, evolved from that creature, no they don't.

Let's say "millions," then. It doesn't matter, because they're just making up the time frame. And because neither one is how we got here, and neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

...the number of transitional ones should vastly exceed the non-transitional ones.

They do.

They don't. Neither the fossil record nor present observation gives us what we should expect if Human Evolutionism were true. We should expect multitudinous specimens of those that are 1/10 human, 1/9th human, 1/8th human...and so on. We should not expect any fixed species at all, but rather an infinite variation of interfertile beings. (Of course, logically, there should be no discrete stages at all, but just a total continuum of variation, but we'll give the Evolutionists a free one here).

Moreover, if the Evolutionists' story were right, each stage, such as 1/10th human, would have to find a mating pair with either exactly the same mutation, or no dominant genes to the contrary, so that the phenomenon of gene reversion (which is well-established scientifically, of course, since we can produce it experimentally and observe it daily) would not immediately result in that mutation stage being reverted to the norm, meaning that a 1/10th human could never move up to being a 1/9th human...and so on.

[Will Bouwman]

...neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form. That is the proposal you need to confront, if you wish to debunk the theory; attacking a straw man won't do it

We should not expect any fixed species...

Correct, nor do we find any.

[Flannel Jesus]

...neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form. That is the proposal you need to confront, if you wish to debunk the theory; attacking a straw man won't do it

We should not expect any fixed species...

Correct, nor do we find any.

Finally someone said this. This is the correct response

[Alexiev]

...neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form. That is the proposal you need to confront, if you wish to debunk the theory; attacking a straw man won't do it

We should not expect any fixed species...

Correct, nor do we find any.

Finally someone said this. This is the correct response

Not true! I was born male, and much as I respect women I'm not transitioning.

[Immanuel Can]

...neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form.

That's actually verifiably not true. What we have, instead, are "species." A "species" is a distinct type of animal or plant that is not interfertile with other "species," and thus is clearly NOT in any "transitional" form. And all we have are "species." No transitional forms. The assumption that they even CAN transition is utterly unsupported by our observations.

Evolutionary scientists are actually quite desperate to produce an example of one such "transition." Often, they use subjects like fruit flies, which have very short lifespans and quick reproductive cycles, to run through multiple generations of an organism, bombarding the subjects with different radiations, or toxins, or whatever they can think of, in the hope of producing just one transitional form of fruit fly. And it's never worked.

Dogs are the most overbread mammalian on the planet. Generations of selective breeding -- breeding by human interference, of course -- have produced everything from chihuahuas to great danes, everything from boxers to beagles...and every last one of them remains of the same species, all interfertile, but none fertile with other species. So even with the boost of repeated generations of human interference in breeding, we can't produce a single animal that crosses the species barrier -- far less, believe it can happen by mere random mutation, spontaneously, and for millions or billions of years, depending on the target species.

Now, regarding people, the theory is that pre-humanoids of a sort have existed for somewhere around 6 and 9 million years ago, when they are alleged to have first diverged from the "common ancestor." Proper human beings are thought to have been around for at least 300,000 years. Given those timespans, natural random mutations should have produced a vast variety of semi-humans, quasi-humans, former-humans, soon-too-be humans, with 1%, 2%, 10%, 50%, 55.4%, 76.9%...and so on, human characteristics, and all should be very evident today, and established in the fossil record, too.

We don't see ANY of that. The question is, given the theory, why don't we?

[Immanuel Can]

Not true! I was born male, and much as I respect women I'm not transitioning.

On that, we agree entirely. Women are quite lovely...but I've no desire to become one. And I trust that no fish, fowl or chimps are surreptitiously desirous of becoming us or them, either.

[Alexiev]

...neither one has anything close to enough transitional forms to support it, either in the fossil record or now.

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form.

That's actually verifiably not true. What we have, instead, are "species." A "species" is a distinct type of animal or plant that is not interfertile with other "species," and thus is clearly NOT in any "transitional" form. And all we have are "species." No transitional forms. The assumption that they even CAN transition is utterly unsupported by our observations.

Evolutionary scientists are actually quite desperate to produce an example of one such "transition." Often, they use subjects like fruit flies, which have very short lifespans and quick reproductive cycles, to run through multiple generations of an organism, bombarding the subjects with different radiations, or toxins, or whatever they can think of, in the hope of producing just one transitional form of fruit fly. And it's never worked.

Dogs are the most overbread mammalian on the planet. Generations of selective breeding -- breeding by human interference, of course -- have produced everything from chihuahuas to great danes, everything from boxers to beagles...and every last one of them remains of the same species, all interfertile, but none fertile with other species. So even with the boost of repeated generations of human interference in breeding, we can't produce a single animal that crosses the species barrier -- far less, believe it can happen by mere random mutation, spontaneously, and for millions or billions of years, depending on the target species.

Now, regarding people, the theory is that pre-humanoids of a sort have existed for somewhere around 6 and 9 million years ago, when they are alleged to have first diverged from the "common ancestor." Proper human beings are thought to have been around for at least 300,000 years. Given those timespans, natural random mutations should have produced a vast variety of semi-humans, quasi-humans, former-humans, soon-too-be humans, with 1%, 2%, 10%, 50%, 55.4%, 76.9%...and so on, human characteristics, and all should be very evident today, and established in the fossil record, too.

We don't see ANY of that. The question is, given the theory, why don't we?

Nonsense. Dogs have been "bred" only comparatively recently. Great Danes and chihuahuas can breed, but a female toy dog who breeds with a Dane might die in child birth. After that happens for a few hundred generations, separate species would probably evolve. Natural selection would select for those female chihuahas that avoided breeding with great Danes. The male Danes who bred with chihuahuas would have no live offspring from that union.

To answer the original question -- no possible evidence would persuade IC. The evidence -- both logical evidence in support of Natural Selection and fossil evidence -- is so powerful that nobody who judges based on evidence could doubt it.

[Immanuel Can]

One of the things you clearly do not understand is that, according to the theory of evolution, every living organism that has ever existed, or ever will, is a transitional form.

That's actually verifiably not true. What we have, instead, are "species." A "species" is a distinct type of animal or plant that is not interfertile with other "species," and thus is clearly NOT in any "transitional" form. And all we have are "species." No transitional forms. The assumption that they even CAN transition is utterly unsupported by our observations.

Evolutionary scientists are actually quite desperate to produce an example of one such "transition." Often, they use subjects like fruit flies, which have very short lifespans and quick reproductive cycles, to run through multiple generations of an organism, bombarding the subjects with different radiations, or toxins, or whatever they can think of, in the hope of producing just one transitional form of fruit fly. And it's never worked.

Dogs are the most overbread mammalian on the planet. Generations of selective breeding -- breeding by human interference, of course -- have produced everything from chihuahuas to great danes, everything from boxers to beagles...and every last one of them remains of the same species, all interfertile, but none fertile with other species. So even with the boost of repeated generations of human interference in breeding, we can't produce a single animal that crosses the species barrier -- far less, believe it can happen by mere random mutation, spontaneously, and for millions or billions of years, depending on the target species.

Now, regarding people, the theory is that pre-humanoids of a sort have existed for somewhere around 6 and 9 million years ago, when they are alleged to have first diverged from the "common ancestor." Proper human beings are thought to have been around for at least 300,000 years. Given those timespans, natural random mutations should have produced a vast variety of semi-humans, quasi-humans, former-humans, soon-too-be humans, with 1%, 2%, 10%, 50%, 55.4%, 76.9%...and so on, human characteristics, and all should be very evident today, and established in the fossil record, too.

We don't see ANY of that. The question is, given the theory, why don't we?

Nonsense. Dogs have been "bred" only comparatively recently.

Right. But stretching out the timeframe only makes it much, much worse for the Evolutionists' story. If a little time produces so much variation through selective breeding, then longer times with random mutation produce much, much more. So you're actually hurting the Evolutionists' case.

A trajectory off by one degree may be okay if the distance is not great; but if it's the vast reaches of space, then one degree means your rocket misses the mark by hundreds of miles. Likewise, random variations by mutation would produce many MORE transtional forms as the timespan is lengthened, not result in fewer.

Basic logic.