The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[amariselle]

Who said each individual cant assign their own purpose or meaning to their own life.

And, if this life is all we have that would if anything, increase the meaning and purpose of how we live it.

Well, if we all give meaning to our own lives, then no one has any right to object to the meaning someone else gives theirs. So, in that case, people should be free to live however they choose, and you have no reason to object to their doing so. They are, after all, living in accordance with the meaning they have given their own life.

And yet, you clearly do object. Why is that?

And no, if this life is all we have, and if we are simply the result of random chance, then this life has no meaning, period. If we just accidentally happen to be here and will one day all cease to exist, then our existence now is pointless and meaningless. You can't give meaning to meaninglessness, no matter how hard you try or how much you may wish you could.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, if we all give meaning to our own lives, then no one has any right to object to the meaning someone else gives theirs. So, in that case, people should be free to live however they choose, and you have no reason to object to their doing so. They are, after all, living in accordance with the meaning they have given their own life.

And yet, you clearly do object. Why is that?

And no, if this life is all we have, and if we are simply the result of random chance, then this life has no meaning, period. If we just accidentally happen to be here and will one day all cease to exist, then our existence now is pointless and meaningless. You can't give meaning to meaninglessness, no matter how hard you try or how much you may wish you could.

And you cant determine what has meaning to someone else. That would be quite presumptious in my opinion.

People are free to live their life as they choose, up until they infringe on the rights of others.

 

[amariselle]

And you cant determine what has meaning to someone else. That would be quite presumptious in my opinion.

People are free to live their life as they choose, up until they infringe on the rights of others.

Then don't object to them doing so, if that's what you believe.

 

[bhsmte]

Then don't object to then doing so, if that's what you believe.

I dont follow. What am i objecting to?

 

[Jimmy D]

So religious objections aside, can we all agree that the OP is a piece of solid evidence for the theory of evolution?

If whales evolved from terrestrial mammals we would expect to find certain things in addition to the characteristics that undeniably make them mammals.

From physiology we see that unlike fish and marine reptiles (see the ichthyosaur body plan), which move side to side, whales should move up and down just like their terrestrial counterparts do. Indeed, that is what we observe. A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

Based on the fact that we've observed atavistic legs on whales, we would expect from genetics and embryology to see that they retain anatomical or molecular vestiges for hind leg development. We observe both.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm

Cetaceans also have the gene package for limb development. In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work together to develop them, but in cetaceans that gene package is non-functioning so the limb buds never develop unless there is a problem and atavistic hand limbs actually grow.
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/22/8414.full

Press release here:
http://news.ufl.edu/archive/2006/05...-legs-got-sleek-and-conquered-the-oceans.html
>> In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt. <<

 

[Jimmy D]

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm sorry, but your argument is not as clear as you seem think it is, to the extent that there even is an "argument" there...

You are not paying attention, at least try to keep up or don't join in the conversation. I had completely moved form that post and was discussing your answer to another. Look at what you are replying to before you answer.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You can doubt whatever you want, but it won't change the facts of the matter....

We can take a sample of your DNA and a sample of your supposed dad and determine with high accuracy wheter that person is your actual biological father.

Perhaps you should ask yourself how geneticists are able to determine that.




Can beliefs be wrong?

I'll assume that you'll reasonable answer that with "off course they can be wrong".
So there you go... beliefs aren't "truth establishing", because they can be wrong.

Beliefs and opinions are just that: beliefs and opinions.

And it doesn't matter who holds the beliefs / opinions either.
A scientist's opinion/belief is just an opinion/belief as well.

Sorry you aren't so confident with your own beliefs, I am. Are you actually telling me I should not be? If so, why?


We can take a sample of your DNA and a sample of your supposed dad and determine with high accuracy wheter that person is your actual biological father.

And??

Perhaps you should ask yourself how geneticists are able to determine that.

Why?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So what's wrong with the OP?

Jimmy, you're just going to have to read the thread to get things figured out. I'm sorry but it just takes entirely too much time to repeat things and try to explain how the flow of the thread went. I wasn't just being an a** when I said you weren't paying attention...you really need to pay attention to all that's written.

But so I don't seem like the arrogant AH some see me as, here is something that might help...Take my last post where dogma finally at least alluded to bringing what I assume was some evidence forward to discuss, just as I've been trying to get someone to do all a long. I look at it, and I have no idea how it's evidence...seriously, none whatsoever...I'm thinking what are these people trying to pull anyway? did I miss the punch line? But that's a start anyway, at least I think it was, and maybe someone will follow thorough with the remainder of what I've been requesting for awhile now and explain how that DNA thing or whatever is evidence. Thus far I'm getting a big fat zero.

 

[Kenny'sID]

So religious objections aside, can we all agree that the OP is a piece of solid evidence for the theory of evolution?

Not even close....not me anyway.

 

[Astrophile]

You don't have to, that's your choice.

However, you do seem to want to convince me that I shouldn't, which is why you keep asking me to give my reasons for personally choosing God and the Bible over science.

The important question is whether you are willing to give other people a similar right of choice, in particular whether you are willing to have evolution taught in schools not only as science but as the essential unifying theory of biology. If you are not willing to accept this, what reasons have you for opposing the teaching of evolution in schools?

And when I do, you're not satisfied with the answers I give, because you have particular answers in mind and will not accept anything else.

And then when I ask you why you care so much about my personal beliefs, you refuse to tell me why.

So, now this has gone in circles long enough.

I'm done playing games.

As Rhett Butler said, 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a **** about your personal beliefs.' What worries me is that there are many Christians who want to impose their personal beliefs about biology and geology on the education system, who want to have creationism taught as science, and who even want political parties to adopt their personal beliefs about biology and geology as party policy.

This is not merely a matter of personal beliefs about religion or science, it is part of a well-organised and well-financed attempt to gain political power. Is this something that you want to be part of?

 

[amariselle]

The important question is whether you are willing to give other people a similar right of choice, in particular whether you are willing to have evolution taught in schools not only as science but as the essential unifying theory of biology. If you are not willing to accept this, what reasons have you for opposing the teaching of evolution in schools?

As Rhett Butler said, 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a **** about your personal beliefs.' What worries me is that there are many Christians who want to impose their personal beliefs about biology and geology on the education system, who want to have creationism taught as science, and who even want political parties to adopt their personal beliefs about biology and geology as party policy.

This is not merely a matter of personal beliefs about religion or science, it is part of a well-organised and well-financed attempt to gain political power. Is this something that you want to be part of?

No, not even close. What you're referring to is Dominionism and Kingdom Now Theology, and it is highly concerning. It's tied in with the New Apostolic Reformation.

I've actually started a few threads on this subject already. I don't agree with it at all.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As Rhett Butler said, 'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a **** about your personal beliefs.' What worries me is that there are many Christians who want to impose their personal beliefs about biology and geology on the education system, who want to have creationism taught as science, and who even want political parties to adopt their personal beliefs about biology and geology as party policy.

Do you want to impose evolution on the kids? Do you want to impose your personal beliefs on evolution biology and geology? does that already happen? Who should really be worried here?

The important question is whether you are willing to give other people a similar right of choice,

No one is going to give those kids the right of choice, we are going to choose it for them. Have you even considered that you might be actually condemning those kids to Hell, if on the even outside chance you are wrong, do any of you consider that? Is you being right so important that you are willing to take even the slightest chance that could happen? Are you anywhere near that sure of yourselves? Would you art least agree to a fighting chance for the kids "just in case" and allow both to be taught or better yet, let the kids and/or their parents choose for them?

BTW, what is being taught now...today?

Again, they don't get to choose that I know of in a public school, and what we are discussing here could be one of the major decisions of your lives, just like teaching your child there is no God

 

[bhsmte]

Do you want to impose evolution on the kids? Do you want to impose your personal beliefs on evolution biology and geology? does that already happen? Who should really be worried here?



No one is going to give those kids the right of choice, we are going to choose it for them. Have you even considered that you might be actually condemning those kids to Hell, if on the even outside chance you are wrong, do any of you consider that? Is you being right so important that you are willing to take even the slightest chance that could happen? Are you anywhere near that sure of yourselves? Would you art least agree to a fighting chance for the kids "just in case" and allow both to be taught or better yet, let the kids and/or their parents choose for them?

BTW, what is being taught now...today?

Again, they don't get to choose that I know of in a public school, and what we are discussing here could be one of the major decisions of your lives, just like teaching your child there is no God

Do you think kids should learn science?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Do you think kids should learn science?

You first.

And you say "learn science" what do you mean?

 

[amariselle]

Do you want to impose evolution on the kids? Do you want to impose your personal beliefs on evolution biology and geology? does that already happen? Who should really be worried here?



No one is going to give those kids the right of choice, we are going to choose it for them. Have you even considered that you might be actually condemning those kids to Hell, if on the even outside chance you are wrong, do any of you consider that? Is you being right so important that you are willing to take even the slightest chance that could happen? Are you anywhere near that sure of yourselves? Would you art least agree to a fighting chance for the kids "just in case" and allow both to be taught or better yet, let the kids and/or their parents choose for them?

BTW, what is being taught now...today?

Again, they don't get to choose that I know of in a public school, and what we are discussing here could be one of the major decisions of your lives, just like teaching your child there is no God

Exactly. Well said.

 

[bhsmte]

You first.

And you say "learn science" what do you mean?

You know, the science you learn in science class; biology, chemistry, physiology, etc. etc.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You know, the science you learn in science class; biology, chemistry, physiology, etc. etc.

Sure, why wouldn't I?

 

[bhsmte]

Sure, why wouldn't I?

Cool.

You have no problem with evolution being taught then, since it is the cornerstone of biology.

 

[USincognito]

Jimmy, you're just going to have to read the thread to get things figured out.

I have read the thread and I didn't see where the content of the OP (or the five other posts) was actually addressed?

what I've been requesting for awhile now and explain how that DNA thing or whatever is evidence. Thus far I'm getting a big fat zero.

"that DNA thing or whatever"?

Here, let's try a telegram length version of the OP:
- Cetaceans move unlike other marine vertebrates, but like terrestrial mammals
- Cetaceans develop hind limbs in utero that are absorbed back into the body with further development
- Cetaceans have a non-functioning gene package for the formation of legs
- Common ancestry with terrestrial mammals explains, scientifically, why we make these observations