What is the greatest evidence against the theory of evolution...?

[Loudmouth]

You interpret fossils to fit your worldview, and we interpret the fossils to fit ours.

Really? Let's see if that holds up. Here is a picture of 4 pelvises. From left to right is Human, A. afarensis (i.e. Lucy), A. ramidus (another transitional), and P. troglodytes (chimp). Now, try to tell us with a straight face that the middle two pelvises look more like the chimp pelvis on the right than the human pelvis on the left.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said I didn't believe it. Can you tie this in to how it proves life evolved and was not created?

I already did, but you refused to even read the post.

I can't open your eyes for you.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Really? Let's see if that holds up. Here is a picture of 4 pelvises. From left to right is Human, A. afarensis (i.e. Lucy), A. ramidus (another transitional), and P. troglodytes (chimp). Now, try to tell us with a straight face that the middle two pelvises look more like the chimp pelvis on the right than the human pelvis on the left.

View attachment 173072

Why can't God create apes and humans with similar pelvises? Why don't you show us every pelvis from every ape and monkey? This picture is selective and is intended to be interpreted with your particular worldview in mind. You show us only what you want us to see. Similar bone structures don't prove evolution; that's just how you interpret it because you assume evolution beforehand.

 

[Hieronymus]

Really? Let's see if that holds up. Here is a picture of 4 pelvises. From left to right is Human, A. afarensis (i.e. Lucy), A. ramidus (another transitional), and P. troglodytes (chimp). Now, try to tell us with a straight face that the middle two pelvises look more like the chimp pelvis on the right than the human pelvis on the left.

View attachment 173072

I could line up car parts that look very similar too.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I already did, but you refused to even read the post.

I can't open your eyes for you.

You're right, you can't. You can only post a long and convoluted post and reject my request for you to put it into simpler terms.

 

[46AND2]

Maybe if it was better explained then I would understand it.

There was nothing wrong with his explanation. You asked him to discuss one of the 29 topics in the reference he posted.

But here, I'll get to the main idea of it:

You have the same 200,000+ endogenous retroviruses (ERV) in your DNA as your parents, right down to being in the same location. How did this happen? Did both you and your parents independently obtain all these viruses, or did you inherit them from your parents? Some other method?

We also share 99.9+% of all these viruses with chimps, right down to being in the same location. How did this happen?

When you compare the relationship of the viruses to the "family tree" of apes which we had already come up with through other methods, we see that we share a progressively less percentage of the viruses, the more distantly related we are on the "family tree," which is exactly what we would expect to see if common ancestry is true.

We directly observe that retroviruses insert randomly across billions of base pairs.

We know that what we are studying are, in fact, retroviruses for several reasons, not the least of which being that we actually resurrected one.

 

[Hieronymus]

I could line up car parts that look very similar too.

Evolution:

 

[ClothedInGrace]

There was nothing wrong with his explanation. You asked him to discuss one of the 29 topics in the reference he posted.

But here, I'll get to the main idea of it:

You have the same 200,000+ endogenous retroviruses (ERV) in your DNA as your parents, right down to being in the same location. How did this happen? Did both you and your parents independently obtain all these viruses, or did you inherit them from your parents? Some other method?

We also share 99.9+% of all these viruses with chimps, right down to being in the same location. How did this happen?

When you compare the relationship of the viruses to the "family tree" of apes which we had already come up with through other methods, we see that we share a progressively less percentage of the viruses, the more distantly related we are on the "family tree," which is exactly what we would expect to see if common ancestry is true.

We directly observe that retroviruses insert randomly across billions of base pairs.

We know that what we are studying are, in fact, retroviruses for several reasons, not the least of which being that we actually resurrected one.

Thank you, I now understand the argument. Has the scientific community proved that the reason these 'ancestors' have less ERV is because of evolution and not simply decay?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I should add that correlation does not equal causation. Just because we have the same amount of ERV as chimps doesn't necessarily mean that it is because of ancestry. Have they studied the ERV present in other species as well?

 

[46AND2]

Thank you, I now understand the argument. Has the scientific community proved that the reason these 'ancestors' have less ERV is because of evolution and not simply decay?

How would decay get rid of ERV's in living specimens? And do so in a pattern which matches how we already thought those specimens were related through other scientific disciplines?

 

[46AND2]

I should add that correlation does not equal causation. Just because we have the same amount of ERV as chimps doesn't necessarily mean that it is because of ancestry. Have they studied the ERV present in other species as well?

I didn't say merely the same number. They are the same viruses, in the same location of the genomes. We share them with chimps in the same way you share them with your parents.

 

[PsychoSarah]

If no comparison, how to you measure exaggeration?

I elaborated what I meant in the rest of the post you decided not to post. Humans having the position of most intelligent animal is a shaky application, because what qualifies as intelligence isn't standardized, and some animals are better at certain cognitive tasks than humans. And before you mention something like IQ, that is a human exclusive measurement that cannot be applied correctly to any other species.

Things other animals tend to be better at than humans:
Spatial reasoning: Birds are excellent at finding their way around, with some species being able to keep track of hundreds of food locations at a time... food they stored away, that is. And you can't claim smell on this, because most birds have a poor sense of smell comparable to our own.

Memory: As I mentioned previously, chimpanzees beat us at memory tasks consistently. There are other animals that do as well, but you'd just claim instinct on them.

Every sense we do and don't have: Oh, here comes the ambiguity of intelligence again, but yes, in some contexts, processing senses is considered a form of intelligence (pretty much any brain development with a useful application can get pulled into that category). I assume I won't need to bring up examples of how animals are often better in terms of hearing, etc, seeing as it is pretty common knowledge.

Also, here is a list of things people, in their hubris, thought were human exclusive capabilities that were later found out to be seen in other species.

Language: From chimpanzees to dolphins to bees, most animal species with a degree of social interaction have some form of communication, and for the first two, the language is complex enough to match patterns produced when human languages are measured for patterns.

Learned behavior: The less instinct driven an animal is, the more learned behaviors it is liable to have. Chimpanzees and other apes teach their young to use and make tools, as well as to avoid predators. In captivity, they will also teach their offspring the various tasks they were taught by humans without prompting. Alex the parrot, famous for his ability to use human language effectively, was used as a mentor to other birds in training, and would correct them when they used words incorrectly... and in a rather condescending tone to boot. Even reptiles like my bearded dragons can learn via observing others of their species http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Liz...gon-Lizards-Are-Smarter-That-You-Might-Think/ , so not only is this skill not exclusive to humans, but it is exceedingly common.

Existential consideration: I get to bring up Alex again; during a session in which he was being asked the colors of various objects, he interrupted to ask "what color am I?" in those exact words. Various species of apes have been observed understanding the permanence of death, and the fact that they too shall one day die. Koko the gorilla saw the death of her friend Robin Williams on the news, and cried about it, recognizing not only the permanence of death, but that the stories on the news represented actual events.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I didn't say merely the same number. They are the same viruses, in the same location of the genomes. We share them with chimps in the same way you share them with your parents.

Okay, but do they find these ERVs in other species? I can understand why evolutionists would hold to this as a piece of evidence, as it may be quite the correlation. But, aren't you ruling out the possibility that there is some other cause for the presence of these ERVs in apelike creatures? Why must evolution be the case? Why do humans have more ERVs than other primates, or 99.9% the same amount as chimps? Evolution is always assumed by these scientists, as there is no room for further questioning or even the possibility that evolution is false. Many say it is a scientific fact, so it need not be interpreted any other way.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why can't God create apes and humans with similar pelvises? Why don't you show us every pelvis from every ape and monkey? This picture is selective and is intended to be interpreted with your particular worldview in mind. You show us only what you want us to see. Similar bone structures don't prove evolution; that's just how you interpret it because you assume evolution beforehand.

I see that you can't answer a simple question.

Are the two pelvises in the middle of the picture more like the pelvis on the left or on the right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution:

Please show how pistons form a nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're right, you can't. You can only post a long and convoluted post and reject my request for you to put it into simpler terms.

The long post is in simple terms. You try to claim there is no evidence for evolution, yet you refuse to even look at the evidence. How is that an honest position?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

I see that you can't answer a simple question.

Are the two pelvises in the middle of the picture more like the pelvis on the left or on the right?

I see you can't understand that you are presenting selective evidence and then asking me to answer a question that in no way proves your worldview.

 

[ClothedInGrace]

The long post is in simple terms. You try to claim there is no evidence for evolution, yet you refuse to even look at the evidence. How is that an honest position?

This is simple terms:

There was nothing wrong with his explanation. You asked him to discuss one of the 29 topics in the reference he posted.

But here, I'll get to the main idea of it:

You have the same 200,000+ endogenous retroviruses (ERV) in your DNA as your parents, right down to being in the same location. How did this happen? Did both you and your parents independently obtain all these viruses, or did you inherit them from your parents? Some other method?

We also share 99.9+% of all these viruses with chimps, right down to being in the same location. How did this happen?

When you compare the relationship of the viruses to the "family tree" of apes which we had already come up with through other methods, we see that we share a progressively less percentage of the viruses, the more distantly related we are on the "family tree," which is exactly what we would expect to see if common ancestry is true.

We directly observe that retroviruses insert randomly across billions of base pairs.

We know that what we are studying are, in fact, retroviruses for several reasons, not the least of which being that we actually resurrected one.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Why can't God create apes and humans with similar pelvises? Why don't you show us every pelvis from every ape and monkey? This picture is selective and is intended to be interpreted with your particular worldview in mind. You show us only what you want us to see. Similar bone structures don't prove evolution; that's just how you interpret it because you assume evolution beforehand.

You see, what reason would this deity have to make other animals resemble the creation that is supposed to be specially made it its image (humans)? The fact of the matter is, for the evidence to support evolution this strongly, if creationism were the reality, then YHWH is trolling us on purpose. Even if everything had 1 creator behind it, making all the lifeforms resemble each other like this, in apparent sequence in time as one gradually evolved into another, could not be a fluke. But YHWH has no motivation to have the creation appear not to be created at all, and to suggest the devil plants fossils would require that being to have free reign on wreaking havoc on the world to such an extent that it needn't bother.

 

[46AND2]

Okay, but do they find these ERVs in other species? I can understand why evolutionists would hold to this as a piece of evidence, as it may be quite the correlation. But, aren't you ruling out the possibility that there is some other cause for the presence of these ERVs in apelike creatures?

No we aren't ruling out another possibility. Do you have one? Why do we share 99.9% of ERVs with chimps, a little fewer with gorillas, a little fewer still with orangutans, a little fewer still with...

Why must evolution be the case? Why do humans have more ERVs than other primates, or 99.9% the same amount as chimps?

I never said humans have more ERVs than other primates. And we don't have just 99.9% the same AMOUNT as chimps. We have 99.9% OF THE SAME EXACT VIRUSES

Evolution is always assumed by these scientists, as there is no room for further questioning or even the possibility that evolution is false. Many say it is a scientific fact, so it need not be interpreted any other way.

Evolution is not assumed, it is concluded. Why do you have the same ERVs your parents do?