Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Well, first you have to show that there IS another interpretation. You have said you are interpreting the evidence differently, but (as usual) you have not said what that different intepretation is. We cannot determine anything at all until you do.
You already answered this in the post in which I addressed the issue.
Once you have explained what your interpretation is, we determine what predictions each theory makes about the evidence and then we check the predictions against the evidence.
The theory which makes the most correct predictions is the stronger theory.
If a theory makes a prediction which is shown by the evidence to be false, then that theory is deemed to be false. (That could apply to both theories in which case we would have two false theories and no good theory.)
Let's cut out the middle man and go with that that assumption, that we have no good theory. Yeah, I think that will work out fine.
Since the majority of your silly replies were based on your flawed interpretation of my avatar (it's not a vampire), I'd say you've proven nothing. As usual.
Slight correction: population of single-celled organisms. We would not be looking for one single cell.
No, we are comparing the DNA of different species. Not of single cells, but of populations of organisms both multi-cellular and single-cellular.
Don't be silly. Any cell which was part of the ancestral population has long since died and probably left no fossil evidence. What we may be able to do one day is reconstruct the genome of the common ancestor. Much in the way linguists are reconstructing the original Indo-European roots of all the Indo-European languages.
But there are no unanswered questions remember, that means, that we must have evidence of this single celled population. If it is not in the fossil record, then how can we examine it and prove it's existance? You are the one asserting overwhelming evidence. I would like to see this single celled population, or proof of it, so that we can see what we looked like million and millions of years ago.
[/quote] There will be both identical sequences in some places and a great deal of variation in others. Both the similarities and the differences help to sort out the "family connections" and point toward a common ancestor. And no, it is completely independant of fossil evidence.
That is what makes the agreement of this line of evidence with that of the fossil evidence so remarkable.
It is as if you had two different maps, drawn by different people, using a different perspective, and they both led you to the same buried treasure.[/quote]But, it proves the species are similar, how does it prove that the species are decendants form the same population? It is not the similarities that determine one human being from another, but rather the differences, even in the DNA. But it is the similarities that we want to base all our assumptions which are not assumptions because we have overwhelming evidence, on. What about the differences? Oh yeah, they help sort out the family connections, like the only use for the differences in human beings DNA is to sort out who my descendants are, not to determine who I am. I had this DNA stuff all wrong, I thought it was the differences that proved who, what, and how at the crime scene, now you are informing me it is the similarities.
It didn't. It was taken for granted and didn't need to evolve. It only began evolving under pressure of the growing evidence for TOE. So the history is complete as it stands.
Yes, the woodpecker migrated. That is the conclusion TOE comes to, since obviously it was not created for the treeless grasslands of Argentina. But what about the bone structures. Why would TOC predict the same bone structures being used over and over for different functions. Would it not make more sense to design new bone structures that would be more efficient for each function?
TOE explains that the basic bone structure appeared in a common ancestor and was inherited and adapted to various different functions.
How does TOC explain this?
If it ain't broke don't fix it!
On the contrary, you have just described exactly what evolution is.
And you have also adopted the latest fashion of creationism which is to state that "Evolution is not evolution."
How? How does TOC explain variation and adaptation?
That the offspring will have difficulty reproducing, yes.
Because it is rare (especially in animals) that the offspring of inter-breeding is a new species. But evolution does not depend on inter-breeding. Evolution depends on successful breeding within the horse and donkey species, not by mules. After all, we already have many sub-species of horses. If one of them developed a problem in cross-breeding with other sub-species, it would become genetically isolated from other horses, and be a new species. But it would still breed easily within its own species boundaries. Unlike the mule.
It would be nice if you commented on the speciation which lucaspa presented. This is off-topic.
If I missed it, you will have to ask again, I have been trying to keep up, but I can make mistakes.
That would be a great suggestion, but I am afraid that there would be nothing to discuss because I have been told by people on this thread, that all the questions have been answered. That is why the TOE is said to have overwhelming proof, because all the questions have been answered, there are none left.
C'mon now, I've never seen anyone post that all the questions have been answered. I have seen another poster describe your attitude as 'petulant', and I think that applies here. If you really feel that there is nothing to discuss, why are you posting so frequently? Maybe your passion for truth should lead you to seek the conclusions of actual, peer-reviewed scientists who work in the biological fields relevant to evolutionary theory. Why take our word for these things? See what the experts say.
Are you looking for a single piece of evidence that is overwhelming? If so I don’t think you will find it, you have to fit them all together, it is only when one looks at the entirety of the body of evidence that one finds an overwhelming amount of evidence in favour of the theory, no one piece on its own is going to do it for you. Sciences does not work like that, and its the very point you were making with your criminal justice analogy, that one needs more than one source of evidence.
Also can you explain to me why it is that you have repeatedly made the claim that the fossil record is the only evidence evolutionary scientists are using, and then, all of a sudden you admit that it is not the only form of evidence that evolutionary scientists are using?
Over whelming, leaving no room for other explainations. I have focused in on the fossil record because people here have continued to bring it back to the fossil record.
If you have, as you claim here, examined all the types of evidence that where presented, then even if you don’t find them compelling you must still admit that they are being brought to the table. Hence its just not true to make the claim that the fossil record is the only evidence that is being examined.
The fossil record became a focal point because when asked for overwhelming evidence, that is what was presented. If that is what is being called overwhelming evidence, then that is what I will address as overwhelming evidence.
Also, can you please stop using the terms evidence and proof as interchangeable because they are not.
I'll give it a shot. It is amazing how much of this discussion relies on symantics, and then we can't understand how we don't understand each other.
You haven’t? You are stating that you have never heard the term “survival of the fittest”?
I don't recall it being brought up in this discussion until just now, but was the questions that stated this entire discussion.
Proof is for maths, everything else has to make do with evidence.
And evidence should lead us to truth.
There is no such thing as proof that is not reliable. You are using Proof when you mean evidence.
Point made.
BINGO! That is it exactly. Theories (like legal cases) are based on lots of different forms of evidence, none of which is enough to be conclusive on its own, but when it is all put together, it leaves little to no doubt. You can not truthfully claim that the fossil record is the only evidence for evolution, because it is not, as many people have pointed out.
Well Jet Black has repeatedly presented you with evidence that is not linked to the fossil record and both he and I mentioned the fact that speciation has been observed. Can you explain to me why you want it to be unique to the theory of evolution? You do not need evidence that is unique to one theory, what you need is evidence that fits the theory, a lack of falsifying evidence that falsifies the theory and the presence of falsifying evidence for all competing theories. Now we have all that. The evidence Jet keeps asking you to address is consistent with the theory of evolution, there is no evidence to falsify its inclusion and as he has pointed out he can not see how the theory of creation could account for it. Now its okay if you don’t understand some of the evidence he presented, I will be honest, I don’t understand all of it, but then he is the biologist and I am the criminologist.
And because he is the biologist, I should accept his word for overwhelming evidence without ever examining the evidence myself? Is that how we convict criminals? By telling the jury what to believe about the evidence that is found, why then are there two sides to every case?
Yes I am. Good grief, if you do not believe me look up modern scientific method in a modern scientific textbook. Yes this is how it is done, I know because I have done it several times myself and I have seen other scientists do it. We look for falsifying evidence to use to test our ideas, we then expect some one else to come along and try and prove us wrong, and we hope we got it right and can withstand their best efforts to make us look silly.
And yet, when someone comes here and questions the evidence, they are laughed off the thread rather than held as fellow scientist, seeking to disprove the theory. No matter how many times you assert differently, this is still a double standard.
All that tells us is that the arguments you presented were not sufficient to falsify the theory because people saw flaws with your arguments or answers to your questions. That's what you got, answers to your questions. You may not consider them sufficient but the evolutionary scientists on this thread do consider the arguments against your points valid, that is because you are going over ground they have seen people go over before and they are satisfied that they have seen answers to the questions. I hope I am being clear here, because I am not sure I am.
yeah I get that, but if they were truely willing to be challenged, they they would listen and answer without accusations and assumptions. This is the problem, and was addresses umpteen posts ago, there is no communication between the theories. at least on the forum. Communication is required by those who value the scientific process, not those whose agenda is to prove the other side foolish.
[quote]The two are not exclusive. Criticism means to look at critically and to weigh up the pros and cons. Evolutionary theory is open to challenges, but your challenges are based on misconceptions. Your challenges have been dismissed not because people do not wish to hear it but because they feel they have an answer for all the question you feel you are raising.[/auote] That is why, that I was told the same thing about 6 million times, (okay a bit of an exageration) that I already understood, but the point I was making was totally ignored. Yeah, that is open to challenges! NOT, that is open to proving your point.
It is not that you challenged the theory that got you the reaction, its that your challenge has been seen and debunked before. You base it on a couple of fairly big mistakes (no I am not calling you thick, this is complicated stuff and you are not a biologist) and you have claimed repeatedly that the fossil record is the only evidence we have when it is not. People are frustrated that's all. So are you, I know. Its not surprising you are pretty much on your own here and you have a lot of other commitments, so by the time you are getting back to the discussion you are seeing page after page of responses. Frankly the fact you have not found it overwhelmingly daunting is a testament to your endurance. Also keep in mind that not everyone in this debate is a scientist, so not everyone is going to debate in the manner a scientist might debate.
If the challenge has been seen and debunked, and not open to further exporation or discussion, then why is there even an evolutionary debate category on this forum?
Yes I agree. Problem is there are a lot of people wanting to say their part, and by the time you get back to the thread it must look like a bit of a dog pile. Frankly how you can be bothered to read all the posts is beyond me, since there seems to be no one backing you. Its not surprising you miss one or two posts, its more surprising that you miss so few. And yes, some people have treated you shoddily on occasion. I may be one of them, if so I apologise, I disagree with you but I don’t want to insult or belittle you because of it.
Sorry I am not always as clear as I intend. I simply meant that most major Christian denominations accept evolution as the method by which God created the variety of life we see today.
Yeah, I agree, but that does not automatically mean that someone in the christian denominations will accept the theory or that if someone does accept the TOC it is because of the chrisitan denomination they belong to.
Well it would need to stand up to all of it. I also think this may be worth exploring more (I am going off to re-read Genesis tonight I think). Creationism is generally attached to a number of hypothesise that we know are wrong. The Geological evidence falsifies the global flood (but not a local one. I think if memory serves it actually supports a fairly extensive local one), it falsifies the age of the earth etc. Now you keep mentioning a newer model of creationism but if you have set it out for us then its been in a post I missed. Perhaps the answer to this conundrum can be found by looking at that. Some of what I am picking up from your other posts makes me wonder if what you are talking about is just a form of Theistic Evolution, but other things you say make me think it may not be.
My belief system alway tends to be as biblical as I can get. That would include the Creation story in Gen. Because there are different interpretations of the bible, I try to reference, cross reference, apply history, apply science, etc. before coming to an actual belief of the issue at hand.
Okay fair comment.
You are welcome. As it happens this book came up on a discussion on the Soc. Sci. Faculty forum of my university recently (after I brought it up here) and apparently not everyone finds Smith as clear and concise as I do. The undergraduates and the ecologists especially seem to find him obtuse, so perhaps its not the best reference for you. I will try and think of another if you are interested.
Ghost
My interests are not always what my time permits, sad to say.
Linear Mode
