Facts To Prove The Theory Of Evolution

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Only the first sentence, warden.

Here ... I'll go back and correct it.

You're still pretty much putting words into my mouth on saying what you think that I am saying. In fact, I'm definitely calling it you putting words into my mouth by putting "He's saying" at the beginning. Muckspreading. Very unchristian behaviour.

 

[Larniavc]

What is ToE ?

I'm appalled.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're still pretty much putting words into my mouth on saying what you think that I am saying. In fact, I'm definitely calling it you putting words into my mouth by putting "He's saying" at the beginning. Muckspreading. Very unchristian behaviour.

Suit yourself.

 

[BeyondET]

That's the whole reason "gold" was in the title of that article. Sheesh.

Ok here's a video in the article as well to explain it for you and why gold is important for neurotransmitters to work. Giving your brain the ability to function and think.

How astronomy makes neuroscience even cooler: brains, gold, and neutron stars

Love being an intelligent, mobile, conscious being? Thank colliding neutron stars. They created all the gold in the universe, including the gold atoms that your brain can't function without.

bigthink.com

 

[BeyondET]

I'm appalled.

Ok sorry but what does the abbreviation mean? It's not easy figuring out what the words abbreviated is implying, unless you explain yourself. Yea "lol" is common use but I don't see ToE used often if ever.

 

[Chesterton]

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

Scientific Proof Is A Myth

We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.

www.forbes.com

While it's a bit cruel to keep flogging a dead horse this much, it is nice that you go to so much trouble to agree with me.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ok sorry but what does the abbreviation mean? It's not easy figuring out what the words abbreviated is implying, unless you explain yourself. Yea "lol" is common use but I don't see ToE used often if ever.

Theory of Evolution. It is a commonplace in discussions about evolution and I think it used equally by those who accept the theory as the current best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet and those who do not.

 

[Estrid]

I shall apologise, I was saying that you were incorrect in your usage of the word 'disprove' when in fact you were very much correct in using the word disprove whereas chesteron is not correct in the slightest of his use of the word proof.

I'm sorry.

No problem just don't want someone
herein unnamed getting the wrong idea.

 

[BeyondET]

Theory of Evolution. It is a commonplace in discussions about evolution and I think it used equally by those who accept the theory as the current best explanation for the diversity of life on the planet and those who do not.

Is the universe part of that? Or just earth?

 

[sjastro]

Even the next level of evolution AI is mocking this thread.

​

Unfortunately I am not at the evolutionary level to understand the sentences which is written in the AI language of Lingubotish.

 

[Shemjaza]

Okay, just for the fun of it, let's use the word "designer" loosely as a metaphor. If natural selection is the "designer" then you're saying that evolution is inconsistent with itself.

Except that's a ridiculous semantic game.

We are not using designer in a loose metaphorical context, we are using designer as an alternative to an undirected process like mutation and natural selection.

I think you're confused. I said nothing about abiogenesis or creation.

Neither did I.

Darwin's book describes how the environment encourages or discourages variation in species to the point that they are no longer recognisable as the original species.

In that sense the book absolutely describes the origin of species... how exactly did it not in your opinion?

 

[Ophiolite]

Is the universe part of that? Or just earth?

That is an odd question. It suggests my original post to you was itself ambiguous. I shall attempt to cover all the angles in my reply.

The Theory of Evolution was developed to explain the diversity of life on the Earth, based upon observation of life on Earth. In that sense it is only about the Earth and can - at this point in time - only be about life on Earth.

However, the theory makes use of principles thought to be universal and the probability is extremely high that if there is life elsewhere in the universe that it would governed by the same "rules" as apply to life on Earth.

I think those points cover the theory of evolution, but evolution is a word with multiple applications. To avoid equivocation we need to be sure which one we are using at any one time. In discussions around the ToE evolution implicitly means biological evolution. But evolution can also refer to changes such as those involved in the development of planetary systems, or galaxies. So in that general sense evolution can refer to the other parts of the universe, or the entire universe.

Does that answer your question?

 

[sfs]

How could you know?

How could I know what? Whether you have extensive knowledge of comparative genetics? I've read your posts here. Whether there's genetic evidence for common descent? By having extensive knowledge of comparative genetics.

Yes of course they would.

How? How does a common designer explain the pattern shown in the linked article?

 

[sfs]

I must say, someone claiming to know what God could or couldn't do might be an unsurpassable height of arrogance.

Who are you talking about? I've made no such claim. You asked for evidence. I'm providing you with what you asked for, and so far, you seem remarkably reluctant to engage with it.

 

[Larniavc]

Ok sorry but what does the abbreviation mean? It's not easy figuring out what the words abbreviated is implying, unless you explain yourself. Yea "lol" is common use but I don't see ToE used often if ever.

Theory of Evolution. The subject of this very thread. My implication here is that you being unaware of this illustrates your lack of knowledge in this area.

Which is fine if you are willing to learn. But post 231 seems to indicate that you are not.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes of course they would. How would genetics look any different if there were a common designer?

Designed items don't fall into nested hierarchies.

As I suggested earlier:
A car designer doesn't have to invent a separate recipe for the tires on a truck and a car after the two lines have separated. This is not the case with life.

But the more significant factor are the non coding DNA and the genetic atavisms.

The non coding DNA is filled with remnants of viral insertions, that match up with the degrees of relatedness despite not being strongly effected by any kind of selection.

Atavisms are genetic scars left over from traits that are not active in the species. Birds have the genes for teeth and dolphins have the genes for hind legs... created species would't need this.


Now, there is the point that an omnipotent God could absolutely encode any of these traits... but it would be very bizarre and deceptive to fill life (and the Earth at large) with physical evidence for events of deep time and of evolution from a common ancestor.

 

[Estrid]

While it's a bit cruel to keep flogging a dead horse this much, it is nice that you go to so much trouble to agree with me.

I'd not call you a dead horse as such.

For one, the dead don't play silly games like
pretending they knew all along what they'd been
arguing against.

 

[Estrid]

Designed items don't fall into nested hierarchies.

As I suggested earlier:
A car designer doesn't have to invent a separate recipe for the tires on a truck and a car after the two lines have separated. This is not the case with life.

But the more significant factor are the non coding DNA and the genetic atavisms.

The non coding DNA is filled with remnants of viral insertions, that match up with the degrees of relatedness despite not being strongly effected by any kind of selection.

Atavisms are genetic scars left over from traits that are not active in the species. Birds have the genes for teeth and dolphins have the genes for hind legs... created species would't need this.


Now, there is the point that an omnipotent God could absolutely encode any of these traits... but it would be very bizarre and deceptive to fill life (and the Earth at large) with physical evidence for events of deep time and of evolution from a common ancestor.

The magic hand - wave of last Thursdayism
isn't bizarre so much as simple minded.

 

[Ophiolite]

Theory of Evolution. The subject of this very thread. My implication here is that you being unaware of this illustrates your lack of knowledge in this area.

I have to speak out in defence of @BeyondET on this point. I studied evolution as part of both my palaeontology and botany undergraduate studies. I had read Origin of Species, seminal works of Theodosius Dobzhansky and George Gaylord Simpson, Colbert's book on Vertebrate evolution, biographies of Darwin, scores, if not hundreds of research papers on the topic, and not once encountered the abbrevisation ToE until joining a science forum sometime around the turn of the millenium. If the premise you base your judgement of BeyondET's knowledge upon is valid, then all that study I did is clearly worthless and quarter of a century ago I lacked knowledge about evolutionary theory. I suggest such was not the case.

 

[Larniavc]

If the premise you base your judgement of BeyondET's knowledge upon is valid, then all that study I did is clearly worthless and quarter of a century ago I lacked knowledge about evolutionary theory.

I would contend that the internet shorthand of ToE was far less common back then. Today it is much more common; especially in a science thread.