Anyone else agree that evolution must be right (helped by god or not)

[Tbarjr]

I've posted a simple graphic describing the scentific method in an effort to help you. Here it is again, it'd be beneficial to you to take a little time, shouldn't take long, to study it and understand it.

I can't find any evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were created from an alleged single life form of long ago. Neither can you. Neither can anyone.

This method is the one used to get to the conclusions I have previously stated. There has been overwhelming amounts of evidence pointing to the modern evolutionary timeline and that is why it is backed by scientific and educational organizations around the world. All other hypothesis that have been proposed simply lack a comparable amount of evidence to it's existence. Experiments have been done to prove the hypothesis. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

 

[justlookinla]

This method is the one used to get to the conclusions I have previously stated. There has been overwhelming amounts of evidence pointing to the modern evolutionary timeline and that is why it is backed by scientific and educational organizations around the world. All other hypothesis that have been proposed simply lack a comparable amount of evidence to it's existence. Experiments have been done to prove the hypothesis. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Bacteria becoming bacteria does not address the HOW of the question which has been asked repeatedly.

 

[Tbarjr]

Bacteria becoming bacteria does not address the HOW of the question which has been asked repeatedly.

This is what I was talking about before. The bacteria did not just become another of the exact same bacteria, it became a slightly different bacteria over 30 years. If you extend the change in code over a longer period the bacteria could become significantly different from the original life form, possibly to the point of a complex form of life.

 

[justlookinla]

This is what I was talking about before. The bacteria did not just become another of the exact same bacteria, it became a slightly different bacteria over 30 years. If you extend the change in code over a longer period the bacteria could become significantly different from the original life form, possibly to the point of a complex form of life.

The point is, not a single solitary example of a life form becoming anything but generally the same life form can be offered, based on the scientific method. The claim that life forms become completely different life forms solely by naturalistic mechanisms (the HOW) is based on nothing but guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's and possibly's. Those aren't elements of the scientific method

 

[Tbarjr]

The point is, not a single solitary example of a life form becoming anything but generally the same life form can be offered, based on the scientific method. The claim that life forms become completely different life forms solely by naturalistic mechanisms (the HOW) is based on nothing but guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's and possibly's. Those aren't elements of the scientific method

You must understand that by these experiments the scientists have found a steady, quantifiable amount of increased variation throughout each generation. Extrapolating by said figures scientists have found that the current evolutionary model is correct.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I've posted a simple graphic describing the scentific method in an effort to help you. Here it is again, it'd be beneficial to you to take a little time, shouldn't take long, to study it and understand it.

Yes, as I said, it's easy to post a picture of something, but more difficult to show that you understand the contents of the picture. You have repeatedly done the former, but have refused to do the latter. That's a rather smokey gun suggesting lack of comprehension on your part.

How would you design an experiment to find out if a new additive to toothpaste signficantly reduces tooth decay? It should be very easy if you understand the scientific method.

I can't find any evidence, based on the scientific method, for HOW pine trees and humans were created from an alleged single life form of long ago. Neither can you. Neither can anyone.

Yes, nobody can find any evidence of creation. Given that it should be obvious that I believe in evolution, why would it be in any way notable that I can't find any evidence of creation.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

The point is, not a single solitary example of a life form becoming anything but generally the same life form can be offered, based on the scientific method. The claim that life forms become completely different life forms solely by naturalistic mechanisms (the HOW) is based on nothing but guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's and possibly's. Those aren't elements of the scientific method

There is plenty of strong evidence that organisms can evolve into completely different life forms. This is the evidence for common descent. Ignoring your examples or you'll just come back with your bizarre demands that evolutionists should provide evidence for creation, consider the example of an apple tree and a barracuda. There is a large amount of very strong evidence that both of these evolved from common ancestors. Any common ancestor would have been a very different form of life (e.g. single celled eukaryote lifeform) from either the apple tree and the barracuda. But, since it is a common ancestor to both, this common ancestor has evolved into both the apple tree and the barracuda. There is no way that wildly different forms of life such as apple trees and barracudas can have evolved from a common ancestor without one form of life evolving into a radically different form of life. Since we have so much evidence of common ancestry, we have equally good evidence for organisms evolving into radically different forms of life.

BTW: Science creates theories. All theories are (if you want to use intellectually dishonest labelling) 'might have beens' and 'possiblys'. Even the theories that gravity exists and that the earth goes around the sun are 'might have beens' and 'possiblys'. What makes us interested in some theories such as gravity, earth going around the sun, and that life today has evolved from earlier simpler lifeforms, is that given the evicence, the probability that they are correct is 99.99-who-knows-how-many-nines%. That you don't understand this shows how little you understand science.

 

[justlookinla]

You must understand that by these experiments the scientists have found a steady, quantifiable amount of increased variation throughout each generation. Extrapolating by said figures scientists have found that the current evolutionary model is correct.

I understand by these experiments that scientists have found that bacteria are still bacteria, moths still moths, ect. The extrapolating of any data removes it from the realm of the scientific method to the realm of guesses and suppositions. They guess, they suppose, that given enough time, bacteria would produce a completely different life form. There's absolutely no evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a conclusion.

 

[justlookinla]

Yes, as I said, it's easy to post a picture of something, but more difficult to show that you understand the contents of the picture. You have repeatedly done the former, but have refused to do the latter. That's a rather smokey gun suggesting lack of comprehension on your part.

What's not to understand? Are you suggesting that the graphic is somehow misleading or incomplete? If so, point out the flaws.

How would you design an experiment to find out if a new additive to toothpaste signficantly reduces tooth decay? It should be very easy if you understand the scientific method.

Same song of attempting to take the focus from the complete lack of any evidence, based on the scientific method, of HOW pine trees and humans were created, made, produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Yes, nobody can find any evidence of creation. Given that it should be obvious that I believe in evolution, why would it be in any way notable that I can't find any evidence of creation.

Same song of attempting to take the focus from the complete lack of any evidence, based on the scientific method, of HOW pine trees and humans were created, made, produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

 

[justlookinla]

There is plenty of strong evidence that organisms can evolve into completely different life forms.

Do you have evidence of bacteria becoming something other than bacteria? How about moths becoming something other than moths? What "strong evidence" do you have of such occurrences? I suspect this is yet another empty claim which is in the same vein of the 'hundreds of references' you never produced.

This is the evidence for common descent.

For probably the 50th time, this isn't about common descent, it's about the evidence, based on the scientific method, for HW pine trees and humans were created, made, produced from an alleged single life form of long ago.

Ignoring your examples or you'll just come back with your bizarre demands that evolutionists should provide evidence for creation, consider the example of an apple tree and a barracuda. There is a large amount of very strong evidence that both of these evolved from common ancestors.

The question isn't about common ancestry.

Any common ancestor

The question isn't about common ancestry.

would have been a very different form of life (e.g. single celled eukaryote lifeform) from either the apple tree and the barracuda. But, since it is a common ancestor to both,

The question isn't about common ancestry.

this common ancestor has evolved into both the apple tree and the barracuda.

The question isn't about common ancestry.

There is no way that wildly different forms of life such as apple trees and barracudas can have evolved from a common ancestor

The question isn't about common ancestry.

without one form of life evolving into a radically different form of life. Since we have so much evidence of common ancestry, we have equally good evidence for organisms evolving into radically different forms of life.

The question isn't about common ancestry.

BTW: Science creates theories. All theories are (if you want to use intellectually dishonest labelling) 'might have beens' and 'possiblys'. Even the theories that gravity exists and that the earth goes around the sun are 'might have beens' and 'possiblys'. What makes us interested in some theories such as gravity, earth going around the sun, and that life today has evolved from earlier simpler lifeforms, is that given the evicence, the probability that they are correct is 99.99-who-knows-how-many-nines%. That you don't understand this shows how little you understand science.

You don't understand the scientific method. Here, I'll help you again.....

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where's the evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a claim?

Que?

The model of evolution is build based on the data we collect / observe.
This model states that evolution is a gradual process and that every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.

Therefor, if a moth gives birth to anything but a moth - then the model is wrong.

Created, produced, made...use whatever term you wish.

I'll use the correct term: evolved.

The fact is, no evidence, based on the scientific method, exists for the evolutionary view (one of many) HOW all life we observe today was created, produced, made from an alleged single life form of long ago.

If you say so.
It's not correct what you say, but it's clear that you don't care about being correct. You only care about holding on to your religious views.

I can only wonder why religious fundamentalists such as yourself ask about evidence or even talk about it. We all know that no amount of evidence will ever persuade you...

Pine trees and humans were produced from one (unknown) form of life? How?

They both share an ancestor, yes. How? Through evolution. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

Is the evidence you speak of based on the scientific method?

Yes.
Biology, geology, archeology, neuro-biology, chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, bio-chemistry, physics,...

When you have many independend lines of study converging on the same conclusion, usually that is a good indication that the conclusion is rather solid.

Not that you care about science or evidence, off course.
You only care about your religious beliefs.

You forgot atheistic Darwinist creationism.

Yeah, and "atheistic falling" - you know, the idea that gravity isn't the result of angels holding planets in orbit.

And "atheistic germs" - you know, the idea that micro-organisms cause desease and not the minions of satan.

What, no scientific method?

Modeling reality based on reality is what science does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand your position and see why you are not convinced. The problem is that yes, a moth gives birth to another moth but it is not identical, nor is it a perfect mix of parent genes, it is different. This moth then goes on and repeats the process giving birth to another generation of slightly different moths. Some moths will be born with disadvantages and die while others will be born with advantages and reproduce. Repeat the cycle about 10000 times and you will get something that may look moth-like but has several different attributes. It may be so different that when introduced to an original moth it can not, or will not reproduce. If this happens the new moth is considered a new species. Repeat this cycle 100 times and you get something that looks nothing like it's ancestor. It may not even be similar on the cellular level.
Evolution is simply taking micro-evolution and letting it go on for 4 billion years.
Our proof the history I gave you comes from analyzing genetic similarities to get an estimated time of divergence and analyzing fossils to get an idea of what these common ancestors look like. Geology used to determine factors that could influence the evolutionary timeline. Isotope analysis to determine how old the fossil is and use any discrepancy to refine our idea of the evolutionary timeline and earth's history. Using this scientists have set a pretty solid record for how life evolved as far back as ~2 billion years ago.

It's a good attempt, but I'm afraid it is in vain.

Justlookinla doesn't care about evidence. No amount of evidence can ever trump his religious beliefs.

He'll repeatedly ask for evidence and when he gets it, he'll just brush it aside with a one-liner or simply repeat "yes, but where is the evidence?", completely ignoring that you just provided it.

I'm posting this blind and haven't read any of the posts that came after the one I'm replying to right now. 100 bucks says I nailed it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A 'pretty good idea' is simply a subjective conclusion, not based on the scientific method.

See? Told you...

I nailed it.

Brushing aside the complete post with a one-liner.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The point is, not a single solitary example of a life form becoming anything but generally the same life form can be offered, based on the scientific method.

Human chromosome nr 2 is a fused chromosome and when pulled apart at the fusion site, it's a direct match with chromosome 2 and 13 from chimps.

Humans share thousands of ERV's with chimps and a little less with the other Great Apes.

This is the same kind of evidence that is used to prove that your dad is your actual biological dad. And that's just 2 examples of a mountain of data showing the exact same things.

You may resume your one-liner handwaving or complete ignoring of this evidence now.

The claim that life forms become completely different life forms solely by naturalistic mechanisms (the HOW)

No, evolution does not say that life forms become "completely different" life forms.
We humans, for example, really aren't "completely different" compared to any other mammal. Not in any sense of the word. Not even by a long shot.

Quite the opposite. While we have differences, we are much more alike then we are different.

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty stand between you and your fundamentalist religious beliefs...

 

[DogmaHunter]

I understand by these experiments that scientists have found that bacteria are still bacteria, moths still moths, ect.

I have just informed you that evolution doesn't predict otherwise. Plenty of other people have informed you of this as well.

Why do you continue to repeat statements that have been corrected?
If a moth produces anything but a moth, evolution is FALSIFIED.

Capiche?

The extrapolating of any data removes it from the realm of the scientific method to the realm of guesses and suppositions

I lol'ed.

 

[justlookinla]

Que?

The model of evolution is build based on the data we collect / observe.
This model states that evolution is a gradual process and that every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.

Therefor, if a moth gives birth to anything but a moth - then the model is wrong.

At some point in time, something which wasn't a pine tree or human produced something which produced a pine tree and human. The HOW of this occurrence is what's in question. The HOW of the process, based on the scientific method.

I'll use the correct term: evolved.

Call it what you will, there was a process which produced both pine trees and humans from a life form which wasn't a pine tree or human. HOW was this accomplished, based on the scientific method.

If you say so.
It's not correct what you say, but it's clear that you don't care about being correct. You only care about holding on to your religious views.

I can only wonder why religious fundamentalists such as yourself ask about evidence or even talk about it. We all know that no amount of evidence will ever persuade you...

What evidence, based on the scientific method for the HOW?

They both share an ancestor, yes. How? Through evolution. Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

This isn't about common ancestry.

Yes.
Biology, geology, archeology, neuro-biology, chemistry, molecular biology, genetics, bio-chemistry, physics,...

When you have many independend lines of study converging on the same conclusion, usually that is a good indication that the conclusion is rather solid.

Not that you care about science or evidence, off course.
You only care about your religious beliefs.

You only care about making empty claims that you have evidence, based on the scientific method.

Yeah, and "atheistic falling" - you know, the idea that gravity isn't the result of angels holding planets in orbit.

And "atheistic germs" - you know, the idea that micro-organisms cause desease and not the minions of satan.

Can't stick with the issue of HOW, can you?

Modeling reality based on reality is what science does.

That's why the guesses and suppositions of how pine trees and humans isn't science.

 

[justlookinla]

Human chromosome nr 2 is a fused chromosome and when pulled apart at the fusion site, it's a direct match with chromosome 2 and 13 from chimps.

Humans share thousands of ERV's with chimps and a little less with the other Great Apes.

This is the same kind of evidence that is used to prove that your dad is your actual biological dad. And that's just 2 examples of a mountain of data showing the exact same things.

You may resume your one-liner handwaving or complete ignoring of this evidence now.

Sure would be nice if you would stop trying to make the issue about common ancestry instead of the HOW issue.

No, evolution does not say that life forms become "completely different" life forms.

Pine trees and humans aren't completely different life forms?

We humans, for example, really aren't "completely different" compared to any other mammal. Not in any sense of the word. Not even by a long shot.

Amazing.

Quite the opposite. While we have differences, we are much more alike then we are different.

But hey, don't let intellectual honesty stand between you and your fundamentalist religious beliefs...

You'll say anything in an attempt to protect your faith-based atheistic Darwinist creationism, won't you? Make any old empty claim.

It's not working.

 

[Jimmy D]

Justlookinla doesn't care about evidence. No amount of evidence can ever trump his religious beliefs.

He'll repeatedly ask for evidence and when he gets it, he'll just brush it aside with a one-liner or simply repeat "yes, but where is the evidence?", completely ignoring that you just provided it.

Human chromosome nr 2 is a fused chromosome and when pulled apart at the fusion site, it's a direct match with chromosome 2 and 13 from chimps.

Humans share thousands of ERV's with chimps and a little less with the other Great Apes.

This is the same kind of evidence that is used to prove that your dad is your actual biological dad. And that's just 2 examples of a mountain of data showing the exact same things.

You may resume your one-liner handwaving or complete ignoring of this evidence now.

Sure would be nice if you would stop trying to make the issue about common ancestry instead of the HOW issue.

You're becoming a parody of yourself Justlookinla, it's got quite sad. The how is evolution, the evidence is what Dogmahunter posted. Can you refute it (using the scientific method)?

 

[DogmaHunter]

At some point in time, something which wasn't a pine tree or human produced something which produced a pine tree and human.

No. As I have explained in the very post you reply too: that's not how it works.

No creature of species X ever gave birth to a creature of species Y.
Just like no Latin speaking mother ever raised a Spanish speak child.

This has been pointed out to you I-don't-know-how-many times. Why do you still repeat this falsehood?

Do you really not comprehend that?
Or do you deliberatly misrepresent this?

The HOW of this occurrence is what's in question. The HOW of the process, based on the scientific method.

The how is explained by the evolutionary model (in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat). The observed data fits that model.

Call it what you will

It's not what I "will". It's what it is. Intellectual honesty dictates that term, not me or my preferences.

, there was a process which produced both pine trees and humans from a life form which wasn't a pine tree or human. HOW was this accomplished, based on the scientific method.

Mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

What evidence, based on the scientific method for the HOW?

The evidence of mutation, survival, reproduction.
Genetics, comparative anatomy, distribution of species (both living and fossilised),...

This isn't about common ancestry.

It's an integral part of it.

You only care about making empty claims that you have evidence, based on the scientific method.

All those things are branches of science, working by the scientific method.

Can't stick with the issue of HOW, can you?

You being unable (or unwilling, rather) to comprehend the "how" seems to be the issue.

Again, in a nutshell: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

That's why the guesses and suppositions of how pine trees and humans isn't science.

Trees and humans sharing common ancestors is very much based on science. Genetics in particular.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sure would be nice if you would stop trying to make the issue about common ancestry instead of the HOW issue.

They go hand in hand.
The only reason that we are able to determine common ancestry between 2 random organisms, is because we understand how genetics works.
The mechanics of genetics is pretty much the core of evolution, especially the "how".

We can determine common ancestry, because we understand that mutations in DNA accumulate over generations.

It's how we can know if your dad is your actual biological dad. Because you inherited his genes and his inheritable mutations. It's how we can know if your sister is your biological sister because she too will have that genetic material.

In short, we can genetically determine common ancestry, precisely because we understand the "how" of genetic change and inheritance.

Pine trees and humans aren't completely different life forms?

No, they are not "completely different" life forms.
We are both build from eukaryote cells for example.
To be "completely different", we would have to be like....you know.... completely different.

But what we observe (exactly like we would have to if evolution is correct), is that we are less different from some species then others.

We are the least different from chimps and bonobo's. We're a litte bit more different then gorilla's. A bit more different still then Oeran Oetangs. etc.

Would you say Spanish and Italian are "completely different"?
They sure are different languages. But they aren't "completely" different. They share a lot of things. Which is what you would expect, considering that both are descendants of the same original language known as Latin.

Amazing.

I agree. Nature is awesome.

You'll say anything in an attempt to protect your faith-based atheistic Darwinist creationism, won't you? Make any old empty claim.

I'm not the one who's desperate to defend a fundamentalistic religious belief.

It's not working.

I gave up hope of it "working" to make you understand basic things a long time ago.
At this point, I only continue to engage you for the benefit of the lurkers reading this forum.

I consider you pretty much a lost cause. Nothing will ever change your mind unless you get your priorities straight and find a little bit of intellectual integrity burried somewhere in your brain.

To quote the awesome Dr House "if you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people..."

And to quote another dude (I forget who said this): "you can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place..."