Why Evolution is True

[dad]

They teach the theory of evolution just like they teach every other theory, such as the germ theory of disease, the theory of atoms, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc.

They are religious nutballs. They seem hellbent on destroying kids and faith.

You are aware that we have transitional fossils, correct?

Nah. Even if a fossil was evolved somewhat from the kind of creature that was created, you would not be equipped to know it!

 

[stevevw]

They teach the theory of evolution just like they teach every other theory, such as the germ theory of disease, the theory of atoms, the theory of gravity, quantum theory, etc.

Yes but that is why its called a theory because its hasn't been proven 100% correct. But what ends up happening is they talk about it as 100% correct and then go into all these nice little pictures and stories that are not based on fact.

What other scientific alternatives are you proposing? Do you have the scientific research and consensus to back it up?

I'm not proposing any others. I am saying they should be qualifying what they say by letting people know that it isn't 100% correct and that there are many anomalies.

You are aware that we have transitional fossils, correct?

Those are up for debate. Many that they had claimed in the past are just variations within a species or kind. Some were shown to not be linked to the animals they said through genetics. Even the ape man links are up for debate as many were evolutionists trying to make apes more human and humans more ape like. HGT has been shown to possibly account for some of the so called transitions through either cross breeding or virus. The tree of life which linked all the animals that Darwin and other evolutionists have made is being dismantled year after year through genetics and other discoveries.

If you take Pakicetus which is suppose to be a transition of whales. They focus on a couple of similarities to link it to the whale yet dont mention the many dissimilar connections which link it to other animals. Sometimes it's a matter of interpretation and sometimes scientists are in dispute about what the connections represent. Esp with say apes and things like hip and pelvis bones for determining whether they may walk upright or not. Sometimes there is only fragments of bones and they can make something out of it that may not be the case. Remember that variation is also something that looks like transition but they havnt got the genetic information to be 100% sure that its a different creature and thus makes another species. Also the interpretation of species is something that many have different views on. When they say there are 100 different species of bats for example they are still all bats.

But if you want you can show me some transitions which you think have any evidence for being true.

 

[CabVet]

Yes but that is why its called a theory because its hasn't been proven 100% correct.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

 

[biggles53]

Yes but that is why its called a theory because its hasn't been proven 100% correct. But what ends up happening is they talk about it as 100% correct and then go into all these nice little pictures and stories that are not based on fact.

Oh good grief.....it's worse than I thought...!

NOTHING in science is EVER "proven 100% correct".....! The very purpose of scientific enquiry is to continually increase and improve our understandings. The door is ALWAYS left open for the introduction of new knowledge...

Have you been living under a rock, not to know this simple concept...??

I'm not proposing any others. I am saying they should be qualifying what they say by letting people know that it isn't 100% correct and that there are many anomalies.

Again, detecting "anomalies" is what science is about....if an anomaly is discovered, further research is conducted. If it is found that the anomaly is supported by evidence, then it may lead to the theory being modified or even discarded...

Mate, this is Scientific Method 101...........where did you go to school...?

Those are up for debate. Many that they had claimed in the past are just variations within a species or kind. Some were shown to not be linked to the animals they said through genetics. Even the ape man links are up for debate as many were evolutionists trying to make apes more human and humans more ape like. HGT has been shown to possibly account for some of the so called transitions through either cross breeding or virus. The tree of life which linked all the animals that Darwin and other evolutionists have made is being dismantled year after year through genetics and other discoveries.

Now, here again is where you are required to present some EVIDENCE to back up your wild claims...

Where is it....?

If you take Pakicetus which is suppose to be a transition of whales. They focus on a couple of similarities to link it to the whale yet dont mention the many dissimilar connections which link it to other animals. Sometimes it's a matter of interpretation and sometimes scientists are in dispute about what the connections represent. Esp with say apes and things like hip and pelvis bones for determining whether they may walk upright or not. Sometimes there is only fragments of bones and they can make something out of it that may not be the case. Remember that variation is also something that looks like transition but they havnt got the genetic information to be 100% sure that its a different creature and thus makes another species. Also the interpretation of species is something that many have different views on. When they say there are 100 different species of bats for example they are still all bats.

But if you want you can show me some transitions which you think have any evidence for being true.

There you go with the 100% again...! The vast bulk of evidence that has been gathered through the fossil record, through microbiology, through examination of the genome, through geographical distribution of species, through anatomical structures, etc, etc, etc, ALL point to the best available explanation of descent with modification...

Answer this one......why do the ERV insertion loci in humans match those of other primates so exactly...?

 

[AV1611VET]

NOTHING in science is EVER "proven 100% correct".....! The very purpose of scientific enquiry is to continually increase and improve our understandings. The door is ALWAYS left open for the introduction of new knowledge...

Have you been living under a rock, not to know this simple concept...??

Speaking of that, has it been 100% proven that the earth is the third planet from the sun?

 

[stevevw]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method, and repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

We know that, its just that some say its 100% true and a fact which is taking it to the next level. Plus the observational side to it is becoming less reliable. In the past it was used and evolutionists made a lot of assumptions based on that. Some of those are being proven wrong through new discoveries and genetics. The testing side is also coming under some scrutiny with new discoveries through genetics ie the tree of life that many evolutionist made is being shown to be wrong. Plus I dont think they have proven evolution through any tests or experiments. As far as I know they have never observed macro evolution happening but only variations with the same kind of creatures or micro organisms.

 

[biggles53]

We know that, its just that some say its 100% true and a fact which is taking it to the next level. Plus the observational side to it is becoming less reliable. In the past it was used and evolutionists made a lot of assumptions based on that. Some of those are being proven wrong through new discoveries and genetics. The testing side is also coming under some scrutiny with new discoveries through genetics ie the tree of life that many evolutionist made is being shown to be wrong. Plus I dont think they have proven evolution through any tests or experiments. As far as I know they have never observed macro evolution happening but only variations with the same kind of creatures or micro organisms.

What...??

It's the same old approach, isn't it Steve...? Make some wild claims with absolutely no evidence to back them up...!

By the way, where's your apology....?

 

[biggles53]

Speaking of that, has it been 100% proven that the earth is the third planet from the sun?

No....

 

[AV1611VET]

No....

So it's a hypothesis? theory? what?

 

[biggles53]

So it's a hypothesis? theory? what?

Scientific theory....

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientific theory....

QV please:

All of the data that we have at hand indicates that the Earth is the 3rd planet, but the Earth being the 3rd planet is not a fact, it is a hypothesis. That hypothesis might be 99.99999% correct (again with the data we have today), but there is a 0.0000001% chance that it is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Oh good grief.....it's worse than I thought...!

NOTHING in science is EVER "proven 100% correct".....! The very purpose of scientific enquiry is to continually increase and improve our understandings. The door is ALWAYS left open for the introduction of new knowledge...

Have you been living under a rock, not to know this simple concept...??

Here comes the ridicule again. See that is your problem you have selective reading just like selective hearing. You only choose to see certain words and it sets off alarm bells in your head and so you react. If you read what I said slowly and properly you will see I have said that some say that evolution is a fact and 100% true. Not me and I know what a theory is.

Anyway here is what I am talking about. This is a quote from Richard Dawkins one of the worlds most famous evolutionists.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. - See more at: Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

Again, detecting "anomalies" is what science is about....if an anomaly is discovered, further research is conducted. If it is found that the anomaly is supported by evidence, then it may lead to the theory being modified or even discarded...

That is not how it always works. They can come to a conclusion about something and teach that as true without qualifying that it is not fully proven at that stage. Just like Archaeopteryx was paraded as the great transition for birds for years. Then when doubt was cast on it even being a bird many didn't let go because it was held in such high regard as the great transition.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wi...x-the-ancestor-of-all-birds-knocked-from-its-

Mate, this is Scientific Method 101...........where did you go to school...?

Well tell that to the great guru Richard Dawkins who says its fact and proven beyond any doubt. As true as the holocaust happened.

Now, here again is where you are required to present some EVIDENCE to back up your wild claims...

Where is it....?

Mmmm I'm not sure I want to get into any debate or in your case what ends up an argument with no rational direction.

There you go with the 100% again...! The vast bulk of evidence that has been gathered through the fossil record, through microbiology, through examination of the genome, through geographical distribution of species, through anatomical structures, etc, etc, etc, ALL point to the best available explanation of descent with modification...

You dont seem to understand what my point is again which relates back to what I was saying with how they teach evolution. Its not so much the science itself but the humans behind it that then turn it into being fully proven to themselves. They will even go to the point of treating it like a religion themselves and believe in some of the aspects of the theory as being fully fact. They will have a faith about what they thing is true even if there maybe some evidence against it. Just like many say religious people are about their beliefs.

Answer this one......why do the ERV insertion loci in humans match those of other primates so exactly...?

I am not a geneticist so I would have to research this up which would take me a while.

Ok so I've done a bit of research and found this. It seems that there could be a few different reasons why ERV insertion into loci in humans can match those of primates. But evolutionists will jump to the link of common ancestor. There are a couple of independent ways this can happen and seem plausible. But the best answer would be we dont know completely at the moment. The evidence is inconclusive and because there are a few possibilities we cant say for sure one way or the other. This is exactly what I am talking about with how indirect evidence can be turned into direct evidence to support evolution. You will assume that its true because you already believe in evolution and that humans have a common ancestor to apes. You believe this from other bits of evidence in which some are just like this and not completely proven. So you will more than likely believe that anything that even slightly shows some commonality between creatures is another proof for evolution without fully checking all the possibilities. This to me is similar to a faith in some ways just like you accuse religious people of having. Except with science its suppose to be experimental and testable and then verified as being correct before you can take that position.

The other point that I have read is considering there are 10s of thousands of ERV elements in the human genome, roughly how many are known to occupy the same sites in humans and chimpanzees? According to this Talk-Origins article, at least seven. Let's call it less than a dozen. Given the sheer number of these retroviruses in our genome (literally tens of thousands), and accounting for the evidence of integration preferences and site biases which I have documented above, what are the odds of finding a handful of ERV elements which have independently inserted themselves into the same locus?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/05/do_shared_ervs_support_common_046751.html
http://www.panspermia.org/virus.htm

 

[bhsmte]

Here comes the ridicule again. See that is your problem you have selective reading just like selective hearing. You only choose to see certain words and it sets off alarm bells in your head and so you react. If you read what I said slowly and properly you will see I have said that some say that evolution is a fact and 100% true. Not me and I know what a theory is.

Anyway here is what I am talking about. This is a quote from Richard Dawkins one of the worlds most famous evolutionists.

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. - See more at: Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth




That is not how it always works. They can come to a conclusion about something and teach that as true with qualifying that it is not fully proven at that stage. Just like Archaeopteryx was paraded as the great transition for birds for years. Then when doubt was cast on it even being a bird many didn't let go because it was held in such high regard as the great transition.

Well tell that to the great guru Richard Dawkins who says its fact and proven beyond any doubt. As true as the holocaust happened.

Mmmm I'm not sure I want to get into any debate or in your case what ends up an argument with no rational direction.

You dont seem to understand what my point is again which relates back to what I was saying with how they teach evolution. Its not so much the science itself but the humans behind it that then turn it into being fully proven to themselves. They will even go to the point of treating it like a religion themselves and believe in some of the aspects of the theory as being fully fact. They will have a faith about what they thing is true even if there maybe some evidence against it. Just like many say religious people are about their beliefs.

I am not a geneticist so I would have to research this up which would take me a while.

Judging by your posts, you need to research evolution in general, because your knowledge is lacking. If you want to learn it, use legit scientific sources, not the lying creationist sources that give false information.

 

[biggles53]

QV please:

I would argue that the strength of evidence and the level of confirmation we have for this planet's position, entitles that hypothesis to be elevated to the standing of 'theory'...

However, I'm not a cosmologist, I'm not a scientist of any category (unless 'mathematician' qualifies...) so I'm happy for someone more closely versed in the field to correct me...

 

[biggles53]

Steve....evolution IS A FACT....

Again....? Evolution IS A FACT.......got that...?

When Dawkins uttered that statement he was completely correct. We can observe the mutations that occur in populations. We can measure the rate at which those mutations persist, or are discarded over time from the genome.....these things can be measured....they are FACTS...!

THAT's evolution.....!

Now, what I think is confusing you is the THEORY BEHIND THOSE FACTS....

The THEORY is the part that attempts an explanation of those facts...

 

[AV1611VET]

However, I'm not a cosmologist, I'm not a scientist of any category (unless 'mathematician' qualifies...) so I'm happy for someone more closely versed in the field to correct me...

Such as CabVet?

 

[dad]

Steve....evolution IS A FACT....

Again....? Evolution IS A FACT.......got that...?

Evolution, unless we are talking changes to kinds, is a lie. Get that right. Again, evolution is a stinking godless lie.

We can observe the mutations that occur in populations. We can measure the rate at which those mutations persist, or are discarded over time from the genome.....these things can be measured....they are FACTS...!

THAT's evolution.....!

Then that is precious little and of no real impact on the origins issues. Whoopee do, some evolving and adapting happens, and did happen rapidly in the former state.

 

[Dizredux]

Steve,

Anyway here is what I am talking about. Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust. - See more at: Dawkins: The Greatest Show on Earth

A generally accepted description of what is considered to be fact in science

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent. I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. Stephen Jay Gould

So in terms of what Dawkins is saying, he is accurate at least as far as science is concerned.

He is talking about the modern Theory of Evolution. The TOE is considered as probably the most understood and supported theory in science. We know more about evolution than we know about gravity for pete's sake.

So yes, it is possible that new animals could be observed suddenly appearing in the lab but that possibility does not merit equal time in biology classrooms.

Even with this level of support, there are some who will deny it but to use Dawkins example there are also those that deny the Holocaust.

So it is not incorrect to refer to evolution as a scientific fact as that is how it is currently seen.

We can see it in the lab and in nature. We can measure it and cause it to happen in experiments. What else is needed to see evolution as a fact?


Dizredux

 

[stevevw]

Steve,


A generally accepted description of what is considered to be fact in science So in terms of what Dawkins is saying, he is accurate at least as far as science is concerned.

He is talking about the modern Theory of Evolution. The TOE is considered as probably the most understood and supported theory in science. We know more about evolution than we know about gravity for pete's sake.

So yes, it is possible that new animals could be observed suddenly appearing in the lab but that possibility does not merit equal time in biology classrooms.

Even with this level of support, there are some who will deny it but to use Dawkins example there are also those that deny the Holocaust.

So it is not incorrect to refer to evolution as a scientific fact as that is how it is currently seen.

We can see it in the lab and in nature. We can measure it and cause it to happen in experiments. What else is needed to see evolution as a fact?


Dizredux

It depends what you mean by evolution. As far as I understand it they have only observed organisms changing within their own kind and not turning into something else. A creature has a great ability to change and vary but as far as it growing wings or a dog like creature turning into a whale I am not sure that has been proven. So we can say evolution can happen up to a certain point but then there are limitations and boundaries where it cant cross.

 

[bhsmte]

It depends what you mean by evolution. As far as I understand it they have only observed organisms changing within their own kind and not turning into something else. A creature has a great ability to change and vary but as far as it growing wings or a dog like creature turning into a whale I am not sure that has been proven. So we can say evolution can happen up to a certain point but then there are limitations and boundaries where it cant cross.

And another post, that proves you know next to nothing about the TOE.