I may have discovered the best evidence for evolution

[FreedByte]

I'm not ignoring the fossil record. I was just making an argument about something else.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for Darwinism. Let's say, however, for the sake of argument, that it isn't.

It still does not provide support for Darwinism. Even assuming that Darwinism predicted a Cambrian Explosion, confirmed predictions don't support theories. The best you could say is that the fossil record is neutral to Darwinism, or that said explosion refutes a competing scientific explanation, but it does not prove Darwinism correct or even more probable.

Out of curiosity, what alternative do you believe in?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not ignoring the fossil record. I was just making an argument about something else.

If you are trying to allude to the "affirming the consequent" fallacy that EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE COMMITS, then you should at least be consistent. You should also reject germ theory, atom theory, gravity theory, and the whole of science as it is defined by the testing of hypotheses.

Personally I'm of the opinion that the Cambrian Explosion is a problem for Darwinism.

I don't see how finding the most basic animals in the oldest sediments to have animal fossils is a problem for Darwinism.

It still does not provide support for Darwinism. Even assuming that Darwinism predicted a Cambrian Explosion, confirmed predictions don't support theories. The best you could say is that the fossil record is neutral to Darwinism, or that said explosion refutes a competing scientific explanation, but it does not prove Darwinism correct or even more probable.

Darwinism predicts that fossils will fit into the same nested hierarchy that DNA does. That prediction holds true.

 

[Zosimus]

Using your logic, we can not use DNA and fingerprints found at crime scenes because God could have planetd them there.

First of all, Fingerprints are not scientific evidence. Second, DNA evidence can be used at crime scenes in a specific way–it can rule people out as potential suspects. If a gun is found and DNA is found on it, that DNA could prove that I was not the killer. It does not, however, prove that the person whose DNA it is was the killer. It's circumstantial evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

We can argue that the observed pattern of shared and derived features is exactly what we would expect to see if evolution were acting in the past.



I would be more than willing to give a response if you are able to present the data from the peer reviewed primary paper. I am not addressing vague mispresentations by creationist websites.

I provided you with links. You made no response except to whine that because it was reposted on a Christian website, it suddenly became suspect information.

 

[Loudmouth]

Second, DNA evidence can be used at crime scenes in a specific way–it can rule people out as potential suspects.

You are committing the same fallacy that you are accusing others of. You are assuming that DNA at a crime scene came from a human because it matches human DNA. You are arguing that God could have planted DNA at a crime scene, so we shouldn't even be allowed to test it to begin with. Even more, you could just as easily argue that God changed the DNA. Therefore, it can not be used to rule out suspects.

That is the level of doubt that you have to raise in order to deny the DNA and fossil evidence. You have to invent a deceptive Deity that just makes all of the evidence look like evolution.

 

[Zosimus]

Out of curiosity, what alternative do you believe in?

You know, it may surprise you to believe it, but there is a group of people who believe that we can't know the past with an evangelical certainty bordering on mania. There are people who believe that we can't know whether God exists. There are people who believe that science does not necessarily have all the answers. Those people are called...

(drumroll)

AGNOSTICS!

I'm one of them.

 

[Loudmouth]

I provided you with links. You made no response except to whine that because it was reposted on a Christian website, it suddenly became suspect information.

You never posted the information. Here is the paper:

BMC Genomics | Full text | Characterization of the heart transcriptome of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)

Here are the questions you need to answer:

What percentage of the shark genome is more like humans than it is zebrafish? How deep is the phylogenetic relationship between this trio of species, and what is the expected amount of homoplasy? What are they counting as similarities? Are they comparing amino acid sequence, DNA sequence, or level of transcription? Are they comparing any non-coding regions?

These are the questions that creationists need to answer if they want to claim that this evidence is problematic.

Or do I have to do all of your work for you?

 

[Loudmouth]

There are people who believe that science does not necessarily have all the answers.

There are those who reject the answers.

 

[Zosimus]

If you are trying to allude to the "affirming the consequent" fallacy that EVERY THEORY IN SCIENCE COMMITS, then you should at least be consistent. You should also reject germ theory, atom theory, gravity theory, and the whole of science as it is defined by the testing of hypotheses.



I don't see how finding the most basic animals in the oldest sediments to have animal fossils is a problem for Darwinism.



Darwinism predicts that fossils will fit into the same nested hierarchy that DNA does. That prediction holds true.

You can misrepresent my position all you want. I would tell you what I think of your arguments and intelligence, but the moderators have censored me several times for doing so. I think I'd better adhere to the rules of the forum for once.

P.S. It's the LAW of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity.

 

[FreedByte]

You know, it may surprise you to believe it, but there is a group of people who believe that we can't know the past with an evangelical certainty bordering on mania. There are people who believe that we can't know whether God exists. There are people who believe that science does not necessarily have all the answers. Those people are called...

(drumroll)

AGNOSTICS!

I'm one of them.

No, an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether a creator god exists. Agnostics still accept germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc. No, science doesn't have all the answers (as in the origins of the universe), but agnostics accept the factual answers it has come up with.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can misrepresent my position all you want. I would tell you what I think of your arguments and intelligence, but the moderators have censored me several times for doing so. I think I'd better adhere to the rules of the forum for once.

P.S. It's the LAW of gravity, not the THEORY of gravity.

The theory of gravity explains the law of gravity.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE

 

[Strathos]

You want to read non-existent books to other people's children?

That's just wierd

There are a few fan-made versions:

http://www.amazon.com/Necronomicon-...8&qid=1415045583&sr=1-1&keywords=Necronomicon
http://www.amazon.com/Necronomicon-...8&qid=1415045583&sr=1-4&keywords=Necronomicon
http://www.amazon.com/Necronomicon-...8&qid=1415045583&sr=1-6&keywords=Necronomicon
http://www.amazon.com/Necronomicon-...8&qid=1415045583&sr=1-9&keywords=Necronomicon
http://www.amazon.com/NECRONOMICON-...&qid=1415045583&sr=1-11&keywords=Necronomicon

It's basically H.P. Lovecraft fanfiction.

 

[Zosimus]

You are committing the same fallacy that you are accusing others of. You are assuming that DNA at a crime scene came from a human because it matches human DNA. You are arguing that God could have planted DNA at a crime scene, so we shouldn't even be allowed to test it to begin with. Even more, you could just as easily argue that God changed the DNA. Therefore, it can not be used to rule out suspects.

That is the level of doubt that you have to raise in order to deny the DNA and fossil evidence. You have to invent a deceptive Deity that just makes all of the evidence look like evolution.

I never argued that God could have planted DNA evidence at a scene. There could be dozens or even hundreds of other plausible explanations for DNA evidence at the scene. The suspect could have visited the victim the day before. The suspect could have arrived at the scene, found the body, and carelessly handled or moved the gun. The gun may have been stolen from the suspect and fired by a third party and still have the suspect's DNA on it.

You know, you may think that everyone who disagrees with you is a Bible-thumping redneck hick, but it's not true.

Similarly it's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent every argument that you cannot logically overcome.

 

[Zosimus]

You never posted the information. Here is the paper:

BMC Genomics | Full text | Characterization of the heart transcriptome of the white shark (Carcharodon carcharias)

Here are the questions you need to answer:

What percentage of the shark genome is more like humans than it is zebrafish? How deep is the phylogenetic relationship between this trio of species, and what is the expected amount of homoplasy? What are they counting as similarities? Are they comparing amino acid sequence, DNA sequence, or level of transcription? Are they comparing any non-coding regions?

These are the questions that creationists need to answer if they want to claim that this evidence is problematic.

Or do I have to do all of your work for you?

Can you read a graph?

 

[Loudmouth]

I never argued that God could have planted DNA evidence at a scene. There could be dozens or even hundreds of other plausible explanations for DNA evidence at the scene.

What other plausible explanation is there for life falling into the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA?

You know, you may think that everyone who disagrees with you is a Bible-thumping redneck hick, but it's not true.

Then tell me how you think we see the pattern of evolution everywhere in biology, yet evolution never happened.

Similarly it's intellectually dishonest to misrepresent every argument that you cannot logically overcome.

It is intellectually dishonest to single out the theory of evolution for affirming the consequent when all scientific theories do the same.

 

[Zosimus]

No, an agnostic is someone who doesn't know whether a creator god exists. Agnostics still accept germ theory, evolutionary theory, etc. No, science doesn't have all the answers (as in the origins of the universe), but agnostics accept the factual answers it has come up with.

Agnostic | Define Agnostic at Dictionary.com

noun
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic
5. asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.

Dictionaries. Who knew, right?!

 

[Loudmouth]

Can you read a graph?

Can you answer the questions?

What percentage of the shark genome is more like humans than it is zebrafish? How deep is the phylogenetic relationship between this trio of species, and what is the expected amount of homoplasy? What are they counting as similarities? Are they comparing amino acid sequence, DNA sequence, or level of transcription? Are they comparing any non-coding regions?

 

[Zosimus]

The theory of gravity explains the law of gravity.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory | NCSE

Which theory of gravity are you talking about? MOND? Quantum Gravity? Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

If I said, for example, that I doubted the quantum theory of gravity, does that mean that I think objects don't fall?

Of course not. So quit misrepresenting my positions on things and start answering the questions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Precisely.

If I said, for example, that I doubted the quantum theory of gravity, does that mean that I think objects don't fall?

What you should be arguing is that we can't use falling things to test the theories of gravity.

You should be saying that we should throw out the entire scientific method because it relies on affirming the consequent.

 

[Zosimus]

What other plausible explanation is there for life falling into the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA?



Then tell me how you think we see the pattern of evolution everywhere in biology, yet evolution never happened.



It is intellectually dishonest to single out the theory of evolution for affirming the consequent when all scientific theories do the same.

What other plausible explanation is there for life falling into the twin nested hierarchies of morphology and DNA? Well, I'm no expert, but the two main arguments on here have been:

1. Life doesn't fall into a nested hierarchy; and
2. Intelligent design.

I never said evolution didn't happen. I said that Darwinism remains, as all other scientific theories are, unproven.

And no, it is not intellectually dishonest to note that all scientific theories are unproven.