Yikes DNA proves what??

[LordTimothytheWise]

To qualify that though... its not that they should actually engage in that sort of methodology. I am just trying to be realistic.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

True that. Should I assume encouraging them to come up with better arguments hasn't worked?

it wasnt that long ago that myself and others were trying to get them to come up with evidence for their side. I was telling them the kinds of evidence they should give us. they couldnt do it.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

That seems pretty embarrassing. There has to be a lot that browse this forum. But perhaps I shouldn't presume. I think I will take a poll.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

True, but to simply say "mutation and selection" ignores a lot of molecular mechanisms that increase mutation rates (in e.coli for instance),

Which comes under the heading of 'mutation'

or gene duplications which appear to be vital to increasing information. Other things are important as well like introns, and crossing over, vertical and horizontal gene transfer. I know you might see those as technicalities, but these details and complexities seem to be pretty vital to our understanding.

They are important to our understanding of how mutations occur, yes, but to simply understand the theory of evolution one needs only know that mutations occur. The how of mutations is irrelevant to a basic understanding of evolutionary theory.

Naturally, specifics require a more in-depth understanding of genetics and so on, but not to grasp the basics.

True that. Should I assume encouraging them to come up with better arguments hasn't worked?

Understatement of the century, literally.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

It's important to acknowlege where the legitimate debate is occurring and where it isnt. questions of process and degree are legitimate areas of debate. the question of whether or not evolution occurs is not a matter of serious scientific discussion and hasnt been for over one and a quarter centuries.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

perhapse i should have rephrased. in my experience i have yet to see a creationist/ID proponent/etc who wasnt influenced by a religious perspective. the only ones that i have known to be anti-evolution have an issue with faith.

How do you gauge that? It seems to me it would be difficult if you are suspecting some kind of insidious intention to tell the difference between someone genuine and someone that is not.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

How do you gauge that? It seems to me it would be difficult if you are suspecting some kind of insidious intention to tell the difference between someone genuine and someone that is not.

i dont accuse them of being disingenuous (not all of them) just blind to evolution on the basis of their religious view not allowing it. there arent any non-religious or atheists on the anti-evolution side(again to my knowledge), however there are lots of people of all faiths who accept evolution.

 

[Inan3]

anyone who is willing to read the scientific evidence for evolution can see how strong and how vast it is. so much so that the only ones who cannot accept it are those who are blinded to it by their faith.

Contrariwise it is those that are blinded by their lack of faith that cannot see the truth. While it may be true that many who read the scientific evidence for evolution can see how strong and vast it is and just accept it as true, but there are also, many who read this same scientific evidence and realize that it is being manipulated by a theory which is flawed and can see it clearly because they are independent thinkers with open minds who refuse to be dictated to by intellectual prowess and degrading treatment.

You really are looking at a theory which goes beyond evidence. It's really quite comical to watch. They throw up a few pictures of a bunch of skulls, or cartoons of a line up of monkey to human, etc. and then give a little story and end it by saying, this is evolution and you fall for it hook line and sinker. They don't have to tell you where, when, how, or whatever, you just say, wow, evolution is true.

I have found that for the most they are really not thinkers at all. That's common though, people don't want to think for themselves they are content to just be the blind following the blind. It is quite sad really.

On the other hand there are the few that do think for themselves who would propagate and use evolution for their own edification. These are the dangerous ones. These are the instigators of hatred. It's quite familiar. There is no new thing under the sun.

So I would say again, CONTRAIWISE, it is not that we cannot accept it but we will not. It is not that we are blind but we see more clearly. Our faith only made us suspicious of the depiction of the facts but our minds have seen clearly the twisting of the evidence and its purpose.

 

[Blayz]

Contrariwise it is those that are blinded by their lack of faith that cannot see the truth. While it may be true that many who read the scientific evidence for evolution can see how strong and vast it is and just accept it as true, but there are also, many who read this same scientific evidence and realize that it is being manipulated by a theory which is flawed and can see it clearly because they are independent thinkers with open minds who refuse to be dictated to by intellectual prowess and degrading treatment.

And then there are those that do the actual research, and use the predictive power of the theory, every day, for developing such things as disease therapeutics, and no amount of ignorant bleating is going to change that fact.

So, my challenge, yet again, despite the fact it is so clearly impossible that not one creationist has ever even responded to me, is to give me a creation-based alternative. Give me a quantitative, predictive model based on something other than evolution I can use in my day to day research.

 

[Inan3]

[/color]
And then there are those that do the actual research, and use the predictive power of the theory, every day, for developing such things as disease therapeutics, and no amount of ignorant bleating is going to change that fact.

So, my challenge, yet again, despite the fact it is so clearly impossible that not one creationist has ever even responded to me, is to give me a creation-based alternative. Give me a quantitative, predictive model based on something other than evolution I can use in my day to day research.

Blayz, I was going to answer this otherwise but before I do, would you mind telling me how TOE helps with your actual research.

 

[Blayz]

Blayz, I was going to answer this otherwise but before I do, would you mind telling me how TOE helps with your actual research.

Too many ways to count, and sadly I cannot give exact examples because I work for a pharmaceutical company and so all the data is proprietary. Having said that...

1) I can (and have) used the ToE and its predictions of the neutral mutation rate in humans to look for regions of lower mutation rate, using the hypothesis that conservation => function

2) When we test a drug in animals (usually mice) we do so hopefully knowing the mechanism of action, which is to say we know which gene products said drug is interacting with. Knowledge of the evolutionary relationship between mouse and human allows us to extrapolate the results from mouse to human.

3) By inferring the phylogeny of a particular virus and correlating it with the date of isolation I can (and have) developed hypotheses as to the types of animal reservoirs said virus is likely to amplify in and the likely outcomes such a pattern of infection is likely to cause. I can (and have) used similar methodology to track the index case of an infection, including which country the infection originated from.

 

[Inan3]

i dont accuse them of being disingenuous (not all of them) just blind to evolution on the basis of their religious view not allowing it. there arent any non-religious or atheists on the anti-evolution side(again to my knowledge), however there are lots of people of all faiths who accept evolution.

"Answers to Common Questions and Criticisms on the Creation Movement"
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/#iv

 

[Inan3]

Too many ways to count, and sadly I cannot give exact examples because I work for a pharmaceutical company and so all the data is proprietary. Having said that...

1) I can (and have) used the ToE and its predictions of the neutral mutation rate in humans to look for regions of lower mutation rate, using the hypothesis that conservation => function

2) When we test a drug in animals (usually mice) we do so hopefully knowing the mechanism of action, which is to say we know which gene products said drug is interacting with. Knowledge of the evolutionary relationship between mouse and human allows us to extrapolate the results from mouse to human.

3) By inferring the phylogeny of a particular virus and correlating it with the date of isolation I can (and have) developed hypotheses as to the types of animal reservoirs said virus is likely to amplify in and the likely outcomes such a pattern of infection is likely to cause. I can (and have) used similar methodology to track the index case of an infection, including which country the infection originated from.

Now why is this evolution and not just biology?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

You really are looking at a theory which goes beyond evidence. It's really quite comical to watch. They throw up a few pictures of a bunch of skulls, or cartoons of a line up of monkey to human, etc. and then give a little story and end it by saying, this is evolution and you fall for it hook line and sinker. They don't have to tell you where, when, how, or whatever, you just say, wow, evolution is true.

its not just a few pictures of a bunch of skulls. there are dozens of bones in the skull and each one is painstakingly measured for comparison. skulls are also accompanied by a date which can be arrived at both by the stratification and by radiometric dating. the chronology and the skeletal comparisons combine to place the organism in the evolutionary tree of life. there is also copias genetic evidence from both nucleic and mitochondrial DNA. genetic similarities in both genes and gene location can not occur without common ancestory. Each protein in the body can be sequenced and compared. when all of these independant pieces of evidence agree with each other, to not come to the conclusion of common ancestory is just being stubborn.

So I would say again, CONTRAIWISE, it is not that we cannot accept it but we will not. It is not that we are blind but we see more clearly. Our faith only made us suspicious of the depiction of the facts but our minds have seen clearly the twisting of the evidence and its purpose.

your faith made you suspicious of science. It's conspiracy theorizing. evolution is accepted by virtually all scientists even outside of biology. Science is built upon intellectual honesty. if evolution truly is the result of fact twisting then there has to be an effort from the scientific community to accomplish such.
I must add that (from my experience) without exception objection to evolution comes from ignorance of evolution and science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

u really are looking at a theory which goes beyond evidence. It's really quite comical to watch. They throw up a few pictures of a bunch of skulls, or cartoons of a line up of monkey to human, etc. and then give a little story and end it by saying, this is evolution and you fall for it hook line and sinker. They don't have to tell you where, when, how, or whatever, you just say, wow, evolution is true.

I challenge you to read a scientific journal or textbook on the subject of evolution. Heck, first time I looked at a textbook on the subject, I was floored by how deep and complex evolutionary theory really is. And likewise, reading actually journal papers on evolutionary biology made me appreciate the sheer depth of research that goes into it. It's far beyond a "bunch of skulls" or "cartoons". Unfortunately, the lay public really has no clue what goes on in about 99.9% of science. As a result, it becomes that much easier for people to dismiss. Really a sad state of affairs, if you ask me.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Now why is this evolution and not just biology?

evolution = biology. everything in biology is linked to evolution.

 

[Vene]

Now why is this evolution and not just biology?

Evolution is the root of biology. It's like when I extracted different organic molecules by exploiting their solubility I used the atomic theory. The principles could only be found and used with an understanding of the structure of the atoms that make up the molecules. Different field, same basic idea.

 

[gamespotter10]

Contrariwise it is those that are blinded by their lack of faith that cannot see the truth. While it may be true that many who read the scientific evidence for evolution can see how strong and vast it is and just accept it as true, but there are also, many who read this same scientific evidence and realize that it is being manipulated by a theory which is flawed and can see it clearly because they are independent thinkers with open minds who refuse to be dictated to by intellectual prowess and degrading treatment.

You really are looking at a theory which goes beyond evidence. It's really quite comical to watch. They throw up a few pictures of a bunch of skulls, or cartoons of a line up of monkey to human, etc. and then give a little story and end it by saying, this is evolution and you fall for it hook line and sinker. They don't have to tell you where, when, how, or whatever, you just say, wow, evolution is true.

I have found that for the most they are really not thinkers at all. That's common though, people don't want to think for themselves they are content to just be the blind following the blind. It is quite sad really.

On the other hand there are the few that do think for themselves who would propagate and use evolution for their own edification. These are the dangerous ones. These are the instigators of hatred. It's quite familiar. There is no new thing under the sun.

So I would say again, CONTRAIWISE, it is not that we cannot accept it but we will not. It is not that we are blind but we see more clearly. Our faith only made us suspicious of the depiction of the facts but our minds have seen clearly the twisting of the evidence and its purpose.

I just want to ask, how can you be blinded by a LACK of faith?

second, you talk about evolution as if it has no evidence. However, a few months ago, I created a website which lists some evidences for evolution right over there

 

[Pete Harcoff]

evolution = biology. everything in biology is linked to evolution.

I disagree with this because it really confuses the issue.

Biology is a branch of science dealing with life. Evolution is a theory (among many) within that field. Conflating the two is disingenuous.

 

[Blayz]

Now why is this evolution and not just biology?

It relies on evolutionary theory. It relies on the concept of common descent and natural selection, otherwise there would be no such thing as a neutral mutation rate, no reason for quantitative predictions of conservation => function to work consistently, there would be no such thing as phylogenetic inference, and no point what so ever in testing anything in animal models.

The fact you think evolution is all about skulls, fossils and chimpanzees is not surprising given the source of your information. The reality is there is little, if any, modern research done which does not in some way rely on the ToE, and the bulk of scientific research is forward looking, not backward looking.