Oh look, the ex recto apologetic fabrications are coming thick and fast …
We don’t “lap up every theory that scientists come up with”, this is your next bare faced lie. First, we accept scientific postulates PRECISELY BECAUSE scientists provide EVIDENCE for the postulates in question, something mythology never do for any of their frequently ridiculous assertions.
Second, as for your failed attempt to slip in the duplicitous “only a theory” creationist lie into your post via the back door, I’ll deal with this in my usual manner.
In the realm of science, a theory is an integrated explanation for a class of entities and interactions of interest, that has been tested experimentally to determine its accord with observational reality, and found via said testing to be thus in accord.
As a corollary, a scientific theory is as far removed from the duplicitous creationist caricature of “made up shit guess” as it’s possible to be outside the realm of pure mathematics, PRECISELY BECAUSE ITS POSTULATES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFULLY TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY.
Now if you want to double down on this creationist lie, here’s a suggestion forvyou - go to Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and tell the locals that atomic tneory is “only a theory”.
Moving on to the rest of uour specious and mendacious garbage …
Oh look, another creationist lie.
Evolution isn’t a “myth”, unlike your tendentious creationist fantasies. Evolution has been observed taking place in numerous lineages of living organisms, and has been the subject of countless successful direct experimental tests of its postulates. For example, Theodosius Dobzhansky performed a successful direct experimental test of natural selection way back in 1948, and followed this up with laboratory experiments on speciation.
Indeed, I’m aware of successful direct experimental tests of evolution that can be performed in a high school laboratory. Such as Diane Dodd’s generation of an incipient speciation event in Drosophila pseudoobscura , Mavárez et al’s replication of a speciation event in Heliconius butterflies, and Ole Seehausen’s direct experimental test of sexual selection in Cichlid fishes.
The last of these three examples is one that YOU YOURSELF can conduct in your own home, if you exert the effort required to maintain two fish tanks containing some Lake Victoria Cichlid fishes, specifically members of the Pundamilla nyererei species complex, and I’ve covered that one in some detail in another post here.
For the record, the scientific papers on question are:
[1] Dodd, 1989
[2] Mavárez et al, 2006
[3] Seehausen et al, 1998
Another bare faced and infantile lie. The tetrapod sequence alone from Eusthenopteron, through Panderichthys and Tiktaalik to Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, is a classic example from the fossil record of the evidence you dishonestly summarily dismiss. Likewise the sequence from maniraptorian theropods to birds, the sequence from Eohippus to modern horses, and tne sequence from Ambulocetus to modern whales.
But of course, we not only have fossil evidence, we also have a vast body of evidence from direct experimental tests on living organisms, along with the exabytes of genetic data now extant. In the case of whales, our first clue sbout their ancestry came not from fosdils, but from serum antibody reaction tests pioneered around 1900. It was discovered, that if you took a small sample of blood from one species, and injected it into a second species, that second species would produce antibodies to the blood of the first species, that could be harvested and used to test tissue samples.
During the requisite experimental investigations, it was found that the strength of the antibody reaction varied with phylogenetic distance. Rat binding antibodies, for example. would still exhibit a relatively strong reaction with material from guinea pigs and squirrels (relatively close phylogenetic rodent relations), a much weaker reaction with, say, material from Perissodactyl mammals, and none at all with material from fish.
Here’s the fun part. When whale binding antibodies were tested in this manner, the strongest outgroup match was with Artiodactyl mammals such as hippos. This work was conducted decades before whole genome sequencing became a laboratory reality.
What happened when genome sequencing became a reality? The data therefrom matched the earlier serum antibody reaction test data almost perfectly. DNA from whales grouped phylogenetically with Artiodactyl mammals as the closest sister clade to whales.
Moreover, when the fossils of land ancestors of whales were found, they exhibited classic Artiodactyl limb morphology, and also exhibited a gradation of festures leading toward those found in later whales - the more aquatic the lifestyle, the greater the tendency to exhibit more whale like anatomy with respect to such features as skull structure and the gradual reduction of hindlimbs.
Once again, you’re lying.
Next …
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
You really are failing dismally here, aren’t you?
If you had exerted even a bare minimum of basic diligence here,you would have learned that I’ve devoted numerous column inches here to relevant research in cosmological physics, such as Steinhardt and Turok’s braneworld collision model for the instantiation of the observable universe, and more recently, the work of Hawking and Hertog on their holographic principle. The former of these two examples includes a direct, experimentally testable prediction, while the latter points to the possibility of, wait for it, Darwinian style evolution of physical laws .
You really are becoming a poster child for creationist stupidity and duplicity, aren’t you? Indeed, your repeated regurgitation of the Duplicity Institute as a purported “source” makes both myself and others here wonder if you’re one of their paid shills. Your incompetence suggests that they should ask for their money back if so.
Heard of E=mc² have you? The equation that describes matter and energy equivalence, and the ability of one to be converted into the other? The principle upon which the operation of both nuclear weapons and particle accelerators are based? You don’t get out much, do you? And again, the locals at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are laughing at you.
Indeed, particle accelerators generate previously unobserved particles, via the simple process of taking existing low mass particles, giving them enormous amounts of kinetic energy by accelerating them to near the speed of light, then colliding them. That’s how such particles as top quarks and the Higgs Boson were found - squeeze a huge amount of energy into a tiny volume, and let energy-time uncertainty deliver the goods.
Quite simply, primordial matter arose from the condensation of the enormous free energy present in the earliest moments of the newly instantiated universe.
Did you have a school to attend as a child?
Still entertaining your sad, impotent quasi wet dreams?
First of all, I’m familiar with the manner in which lying creationists like you resort to specious tone policing as a failed substitute for the substance your ilk never have. That, and of course, those other tiresomely familiar and well-documented aspects of lying creationist aetiology, such as Gish Gallops, quote mining, playing duplicitous apologetics with science, and outright ex recto fabrication.
Why am I thinking “Monty Python’s Black Knight” about you at this juncture?
Plus, you ilk never ask legitimate questions, you instead try to concoct fake “gotcha’s” that end up being shredded.
Meanwhile …
You mean the question I’ve now already answered twice?
Read the above and weep.