The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[USincognito]

Yeah, the funny thing is though: Haeckel's original drawings are no longer accepted and they have been refined and shown to be more accurate. Can you guess who did that? Scientists.

Your need to create his boogeyman who threatens a literal reading of the Bible really says so much about you more than anything else.

It's almost as if they're not even familiar with Evolutionary Development and how, like evolution in toto has moved on from Darwin by integrating genetics, they think embryology started and stopped with Haeckel.

 

[USincognito]

The problem is, Haeckel's drawings were a key component in supporting the idea of a common ancestor. The fact that they were inaccurate should have been very damaging to that theory, but scientists have somehow managed to clean up that mess quite well.

You need to stop believing the garbage you get from dishonest professional Creationists and actually read up on the subject. Haeckel has become a fetish for they and lay Creationists alike, but his embryo drawings were not the entirety of embryological studies then or now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny
>> Example 1: mammalian ear bones and the reptilian jaw
From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw (first reported in 1837 by the German embryologist Karl Reichert). However, in the marsupial mammalian embryo, the same two structures develop, not into parts of the jaw, but into the anvil and hammer of the mammalian ear. This developmental information, coupled with common descent, indicates that the mammalian middle ear bones were derived and modified from the reptilian jaw bones during evolution (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896).

Accordingly, there is a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear (compare the intermediates discussed in prediction 1.4, example 2) (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). <<

He also cites, surprise, hind limb buds on cetacean embryos, just as I did in the OP which I explained happen because they have a the gene package for hind limb development as a molecular vestige of their terrestrial ancestry.

 

[bhsmte]

It's almost as if they're not even familiar with Evolutionary Development and how, like evolution in toto has moved on from Darwin by integrating genetics, they think embryology started and stopped with Haeckel.

More like, they have to cherry pick certain things that they can hang their hat on, even though those items have zero meaning in the overall.

It is classic denial and confirmation bias.

 

[bhsmte]

You need to stop believing the garbage you get from dishonest professional Creationists and actually read up on the subject. Haeckel has become a fetish for they and lay Creationists alike, but his embryo drawings were not the entirety of embryological studies then or now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#ontogeny
>> Example 1: mammalian ear bones and the reptilian jaw
From embryological studies it is known that two bones of a developing reptile eventually form the quadrate and the articular bones in the hinge of the adult reptilian jaw (first reported in 1837 by the German embryologist Karl Reichert). However, in the marsupial mammalian embryo, the same two structures develop, not into parts of the jaw, but into the anvil and hammer of the mammalian ear. This developmental information, coupled with common descent, indicates that the mammalian middle ear bones were derived and modified from the reptilian jaw bones during evolution (Gilbert 1997, pp. 894-896).

Accordingly, there is a very complete series of fossil intermediates in which these structures are clearly modified from the reptilian jaw to the mammalian ear (compare the intermediates discussed in prediction 1.4, example 2) (Carroll 1988, pp. 392-396; Futuyma 1998, pp. 146-151; Gould 1990; Kardong 2002, pp. 255-275). <<

He also cites, surprise, hind limb buds on cetacean embryos, just as I did in the OP which I explained happen because they have a the gene package for hind limb development as a molecular vestige of their terrestrial ancestry.

For her to stop believing it, would mean a serious threat to her personal faith belief and clearly, the defense mechanisms are strong to protect the same.

People with fundy beliefs, only give them up, when it becomes too painful to keep denying well evidenced reality. That day comes for some and doesn't for others. Some, are so dug in, it is far too painful to acknowledge their belief is wrong, than it is to deny well evidenced reality.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Exactly. I wonder why they are so concerned with what we believe if it's all just utter nonsense.

I've posed the question several times on this board, and I seem to get either nothing or answers somewhat like the one where it's all about the children. So who knows?

And about those children who are being taught lies, why would anyone want to take the chance their kids will spend eternity in Hell? At the very least teach them both and give them a fighting chance to make up their own mind.

But all too many Atheists have to make their point and stick with their denial of God by believing/teaching other than his word, so I guess it's all about them having their way regardless the costs.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I have asked you politely to stop lying about me and my motivation for starting this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...-kennysid-thread.7954348/page-7#post-69843529

Looks to me like that wasn't a lie at all. Didn't I already ask somewhere in this thread what was the point or something to that affect? Did you ever answer that? I'll try to find the post.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You can address the evidence presented in this thread:

Nope, been there already and got another poster mad at me because I had no idea what, within the write up was the actual evidence. IOW, I didn't see any evidence, and he got even more angry when I asked him to be specific..something that should have been so simple. You all saw it so, I'm sure you will understand.

So, what you'll need to do is bring that or whatever you have out in a post here, and be specific when you explain why it is evidence, that way there is no confusion.

 

[USincognito]

Were you or were you not attempting to get Kenny to admit that Darwinian evolution is factual, based on the evidence?

Sorry, but I'm not going to engage in your red herring or more off topic meta debate. My motivations for starting this thread have been posted once already.

If you would like to start a thread about the evidence for evolution, feel free to do so.​

and

If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution, we can do so in an different thread.

In fact I'll start a thread and we'll see if you're sincere in actually wanting to discuss the evidence.​

 

[USincognito]

Seriously, what in the world does that prove?

Nothing is ever proven in science.

Those are 3 separate pictures of three entirely distinct species.

Those are photos of 3 separate transitional fossils. And yes, there are thousands more transitional fossils.

There is no demonstrable link evident between those skeletons.

Actually there is. Not that you'd know that. Each of those fossils are synapsids. Dimetrodons are a side lineage from the one that led to therapsids and mammals, but they are ancient cousins to more recent beings like Dorudon (a transitional whale) and Homo ergaster (a transitional hominid).

My point, however, was that we have many fossils that are nearly complete. Saying the fossil record in entirely fragmentary is simply not reflective of reality.

 

[USincognito]

Hmmm....maybe because I don't care?

Then why are you continuing to be the answer to a question nobody asked?

I don't think modern day science is trustworthy in any overall sense. And when I said that in my initial post, I was asked to give reasons to support such a statement, so I did.

Of course you don't. You think it's all a giant conspiracy against your religious beliefs. Your conspiracy theories, however, do not actually address the evidence for evolution.

Oh, and I posted about 19 separate links to some serious issues in science, you definitely haven't addressed them all.

Cool, I posted 6 comments with evidence for evolution which is the actual topic of the thread by the way and you have addressed NONE of them. Looks like that puts me ahead on actually stepping up to the plate and supporting my position.

 

[bhsmte]

Looks to me like that wasn't a lie at all. Didn't I already ask somewhere in this thread what was the point or something to that affect? Did you ever answer that? I'll try to find the post.

Does this mean you won't be addressing the evidence that has been produced on this thread in regards to evolution?

 

[USincognito]

Instead of meta debate, which is not the topic of this thread. Here's some more evidence for evolution.

After identifying a gene likely to play a role in human brain evolution - ARHGAP11B - an experiment was undertaken with mice to see if that gene stimulated growth in the neocortex. Results? Confirmation!
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6229/1465.full

ARHGAP11B arose from partial duplication of ARHGAP11A (which encodes a Rho guanosine triphosphatase–activating protein) on the human lineage after separation from the chimpanzee lineage. Expression of ARHGAP11B in embryonic mouse neocortex promotes basal progenitor generation and self-renewal and can increase cortical plate area and induce gyrification. Hence, ARHGAP11B may have contributed to evolutionary expansion of human neocortex.​

 

[USincognito]

It's often asked "how did sex evolve" as if it were some stumper of a question and is usually accompanied by an insipid straw man like 'did a male evolve and wait around millions of years for a matching female to evolve'. The straw man is offered because they actually understand how evolution works. The stumper is offered because they don't seem to realize that sex evolved before the plant/ophisthokonta (animals and fungi) split so it long predates "complimentary parts".
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386.abstract

Differential spore/gamete formation shows Bangiomorpha pubescens to have been sexually reproducing, the oldest reported occurrence in the fossil record. Sex was critical for the subsequent success of eukaryotes, not so much for the advantages of genetic recombination, but because it allowed for complex multicellularity. The selective advantages of complex multicellularity are considered sufficient for it to have arisen immediately following the appearance of sexual reproduction. As such, the most reliable proxy for the first appearance of sex will be the first stratigraphic occurrence of complex multicellularity.​

 

[amariselle]

Sorry, but I'm not going to engage in your red herring or more off topic meta debate. My motivations for starting this thread have been posted once already.

If you would like to start a thread about the evidence for evolution, feel free to do so.​

and

If you'd like to discuss the evidence for evolution, we can do so in an different thread.

In fact I'll start a thread and we'll see if you're sincere in actually wanting to discuss the evidence.​

No thank you, I've already clearly stated my position. (And I've backed it up) You are not going to bait me into responding to a thread you are now apparently planning to start, just to target me and MY beliefs.

Good luck with that.

 

[USincognito]

You are not going to bait me into responding to a thread you are now apparently planning to start, just to target me and MY beliefs.

What in the heck are you talking about? Your psychic powers are failing your miserably.

And I told you to stop lying about me. I am not "targeting" anyone or their beliefs. I was challenged to make a positive statement for evolution and provided evidence to support it. I have not "attacked" anyone's beliefs.

 

[amariselle]

For her to stop believing it, would mean a serious threat to her personal faith belief and clearly, the defense mechanisms are strong to protect the same.

People with fundy beliefs, only give them up, when it becomes too painful to keep denying well evidenced reality. That day comes for some and doesn't for others. Some, are so dug in, it is far too painful to acknowledge their belief is wrong, than it is to deny well evidenced reality.

Science doesn't "threaten" my faith at all.

 

[amariselle]

What in the heck are you talking about? Your psychic powers are failing your miserably.

What am I talking about? How about this?

In fact I'll start a thread and we'll see if you're sincere in actually wanting to discuss the evidence.

I don't need "psychic powers", you told me plainly that you are going to start a thread in order to challenge my sincerity in discussing the "evidence."

And I told you to stop lying about me. I am not "targeting" anyone or their beliefs. I was challenged to make a positive statement for evolution and provided evidence to support it. I have not "attacked" anyone's beliefs.

I did no such thing. I even asked you to clarify your motive for starting this thread if you think I'm "lying", you refused to do so.

And Kenny, who you directed this thread at, agreed that it seems you started this thread to attempt to convince him (based on evidence for evolution) why his beliefs to the contrary are incorrect.

Looks to me like that wasn't a lie at all. Didn't I already ask somewhere in this thread what was the point or something to that affect? Did you ever answer that? I'll try to find the post.

But, since you've convinced yourself I'm lying, I'll respectfully leave. After all, there is nothing else you can possibly say to someone who has decided you're telling lies.

Have a nice night.

 

[bhsmte]

Science doesn't "threaten" my faith at all.

In my opinion, you wouldnt post what you do and clearly evade directly addressing the evidence presented, if science wasnt a threat.

 

[amariselle]

In my opinion, you wouldnt post what you do and clearly evade directly addressing the evidence presented, if science wasnt a threat.

Well, that's fine. I understand that's your opinion. The fact is, however, that I don't find science threatening at all.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Does this mean you won't be addressing the evidence that has been produced on this thread in regards to evolution?

Of course not. Does that mean you have chosen to go contrary on me again and read something else into what I said because you are afraid to post what I asked for some strange reason?

I mean everyone can see what I said, what's wrong with you?