The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[USincognito]

Do you want to impose evolution on the kids?

Evolution is no more "imposed" on kids than geometry, chemistry or U.S. history. We teach science in the science classroom and evolution is science. Period.

 

[USincognito]

I reasonably doubt it.

Based on what? Your deep understanding of the subject? Your lengthy investigation of it?

- Genes are inherited from ancestors.
- Shared genes are therefore indication of common ancestry.
- Creationists accept that when it comes to paternity tests or getting and Ancestry or 23 and Me test, but they unreasonably reject it when it comes to, you know, actual genetics when it comes to biology.
- All primates share a broken GULO gene for synthesizing vitamin C. Common ancestry explains why share this broken gene.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

So predictable. Science is fine...what you are talking about is theory being taught as fact, for all you know it's outright lies but at best theory and biased opinion. Teach science, not the things man reads into science. You really should have been on the ball enough not to even make the comparison.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

Your point? I mean you need to go back and read what was asked and what I answered and then tell me why you are directing that at me. You might also go back and read some of my other posts and requests, you know, the reasons you know perfectly well why they weren't addressed the op wasn't addressed but you just left out. And I know it doesn't work for you so well to mention the full story, but it might also bear mentioning I made some requests that weren't exactly met either.

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

OK, we may be getting close here now ...hold my hand and walk me through this exactly. These legs or whatever, the ones that disappear... how does that substantiate evolution? How can I tell the difference between that substantiating evolution or it being a part of Gods way of creating that none of those scientists are *even* going to bother looking into as part of Gods way of creating?

Don't you see this could go so many different ways, because those who want to see what is pretty much nothing as even a partial substantiation of evolution are going to see it and they are NOT going to even bother trying to prove otherwise. They seek and hence find based on their one biased goal. I think the key here may be "non functioning" it's been turned off, I mean who's to say that isn't exactly what happened and these are things God does for reasons we could only understand if we were looking to understand how God works with DNA or the nature of how DNA has to be/is used buy God..your scientists are not even looking at that angle...they head only in a preconceived direction and any findings are going to substantiate what they already believe. They believe what they want to believe and look no further/only explore their angle.

I'm still at a loss on what this has to do with the DNA. Did you shift gears on me, which is fine, or was there something else I was supposed to get from that besides leg things? Are we even certain that these are legs?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Evolution is no more "imposed" on kids than geometry, chemistry or U.S. history. We teach science in the science classroom and evolution is science. Period.

No, evolution is still theory and assumptions....It's FAR from scientific fact or is that not proper? Seems someone used the term truths earlier but truths are fact and science doesn't prove things to be fact, yet evolution is factual? or....

Yep, still a little lost on that one too.

 

[USincognito]

Your point? I mean you need to go back and read what was asked and what I answered and then tell me why you are directing that at me. You might also go back and read some of my other posts and requests, you know, the reasons you know perfectly well why they weren't addressed the op wasn't addressed but you just left out. And I know it doesn't work for you so well to mention the full story, but it might also bear mentioning I made some requests that weren't exactly met either.

Oh give us all a big old break. If you actually responded to the OP (or the other five evidences) you can easily go back and quote it or get a link and post it later. I've been seeing the "I've already answered. Go back and look." garbage from Creationists for as long as I've been on the Internet.

OK, we may be getting close here now ...hold my hand and walk me through this exactly. These legs or whatever, the ones that disappear... how does that substantiate evolution? How can I tell the difference between that substantiating evolution or it being a part of Gods way of creating that none of those scientists are *even* going to bother looking into as part of Gods way of creating?

It's right there in the fourth bullet point - common ancestry explains why we observe features of terrestrial mammals in marine mammals like whales and dolphins. "Common design" is an ad hoc and unfalsifiable claim and then you need to go further and explain why God would put a non-functioning gene package for hind legs in beings that, according to Creationists, never walked on land. You need to explain why God would have whales move up and down like terrestrial mammals instead of side to side like all other marine vertebrates. You can't just shout "common design!" and then leave it at that.

Don't you see this could go so many different ways, because those who want to see what is pretty much nothing as even a partial substantiation of evolution are going to see it and they are NOT going to even bother trying to prove otherwise. They seek and hence find based on their one biased goal. I think the key here may be "non functioning" it's been turned off, I mean who's to say that isn't exactly what happened and these are things God does for reasons we could only understand if we were looking to understand how God works with DNA or the nature of how DNA has to be/is used buy God..your scientists are not even looking at that angle...they head only in a preconceived direction and any findings are going to substantiate what they already believe. They believe what they want to believe and look no further/only explore their angle.

You're engaging in philosophy and metaphysics and that's great, but it's not science.

I'm still at a loss on what this has to do with the DNA. Did you shift gears on me, which is fine, or was there something else I was supposed to get from that besides leg things? Are we even certain that these are legs?

I've been saying the same thing since the OP and the information for how Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work to form hind limbs, and photos of the embryonic hind limb buds are right there as well.

 

[USincognito]

No, evolution is still theory and assumptions....It's FAR from scientific fact or is that not proper? Seems someone used the term truths earlier but truths are fact and science doesn't prove things to be fact, yet evolution is factual? or....

Do you even know what a scientific theory is? Because you appear to be conflating it with common parlance. I missed whoever used "truths" earlier, but I wish they wouldn't. "Truth" has a metaphysical or philosophical quality in my opinion so I avoid using it except in that context. Evolution (living things evolving over time) is a fact. The theory of evolution explains how it works and why we observe the things we do in living and fossil beings.

Gould wrote this essay 20 year ago. It's a bit long, so if you want, focus on the fourth through seventh paragraphs. You'll not in that seventh one, he notes that "proof" is not part of the scientific method (as I have mentioned previously).
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Are you going to clarify on your argument or not?

 

[tallbouy]

No, evolution is still theory and assumptions....It's FAR from scientific fact or is that not proper? Seems someone used the term truths earlier but truths are fact and science doesn't prove things to be fact, yet evolution is factual? or....

Your ignorance is shining out like a beacon, only other creationists think you are making sense because they know as little as you do about evolution.
Please do yourself a favour and at least learn what evolution is before the hole you are digging gets any deeper.

Kenny I am sure you are smart enough to understand the reason you were not taught about evolution, don't you think you could fight the evils of evolution if you knew more about it, what kind of general goes into battle without first knowing who he's fighting? surely it's always best to know the enemy, why not learn all about evolution then rip it to shreds? you know it makes sense. Or are you afraid you might learn something they didn't want you to know?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I've given you my reasons.

And we're discussing them. So where's the mystery?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You don't have to treat the Bible as an authority on biology. It's your choice.

Why should anyone treat it as an authority on biology? You yourself admitted that it's not a scientific text.

I have.

In what way? All I recall is you repeatedly saying that "it's your choice."

I've given no reason that you think is good enough. And that's fine.

Surprisingly, you've given us reason to think the opposite by conceding that the Bible is not a scientific text, and therefore not authoritative on matters of biology. Yet you still maintain that it is?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Sorry you aren't so confident with your own beliefs, I am.

My "confidence" in my beliefs is directly related to how solid the evidence is.

Are you actually telling me I should not be? If so, why?

What I'm saying is that "beliefs / opinions" is not the same as knowledge.

You can believe all you want that the world is flat, for example, but it won't change the fact that it isn't.

If I'm saying anything, it is that beliefs should never be held dogmatically. One should always realise that whatever you believe, it could be wrong.

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??

"And?" ??

It means that we can take DNA samples and determine ancestry.

We can also take 100 anonymous DNA samples, one being from your sister, and actually determine which one is from your sister.

It means that we can take DNA samples and determine common ancestry.
We can do this to determine how closely related two random humans are. But we can do the exact same for other species. And we can do the exact same at the species level as well. We can take DNA samples from all the great apes and determine we are more closely related to chimps then to gorilla's.

It's the exact same technique / technology.

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

Why?

You allready can't remember anymore?
Because of our exchange of statements just 2 posts ago...

Here:

Dude, in reality, genetics alone allready demonstrates common ancestry of species beyond any reasonable doubts.

I reasonably doubt it.

See? As I said: you can doubt anything you want, just like you can believe anything you want... but it won't change the facts. One of those facts is that genetics demonstrate common ancestry of life beyond and reasonable doubt.

 

[Jimmy D]

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.

I appreciate your fielding a lot of posts so don't worry about it.

I have read through the thread and the only objections to OP I've seen are as substantial as the one you've just written. If you're going to debate a subject you should at least try and learn something about it. If you want to remain ignorant about the specifics of the theory of evolution that's up to you, but I'd suggest it's extremely hypocritical of you to try and complain it's wrong when you obviously haven't got a clue what you're even addressing.

I suggest you take a bit of advice from Saint Augustine, it may be over a thousand years old but it couldn't be more apt. Your embarrassing yourself and making your religion seem foolish* in the eyes of many.

Saint Augustine (A.D. 354-430) in his work The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim) provided excellent advice for all Christians who are faced with the task of interpreting Scripture in the light of scientific knowledge.

Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.


* I don't think Christianity is foolish at all, just a certain branch of it that takes the ancient myths and legends of the Old testament as literal history and has to deny actual facts about the natural world to protect their beliefs.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Why would you need to have that clarified?

"learn science" seems pretty straightforward.......................

 

[DogmaHunter]

So predictable. Science is fine...what you are talking about is theory being taught as fact, for all you know it's outright lies but at best theory and biased opinion. Teach science, not the things man reads into science. You really should have been on the ball enough not to even make the comparison.

Science IS all about the theories.

Theory = explanation. Building workable theories is the whole point of the scientific proces.

Germ theory.
Tectonic theory.
Theory of relativity.
Atomic theory.
...

Theory is what explains the phenomena of reality.
And no, theories never become facts or laws. Theories explain facts and laws.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, evolution is still theory and assumptions....It's FAR from scientific fact or is that not proper? Seems someone used the term truths earlier but truths are fact and science doesn't prove things to be fact, yet evolution is factual? or....

I think you should read this page:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/

It's only 8 paragraphes. Some 10-15 sentences. Read it now.

You are extremely misinformed on how science works and what the words fact and theory mean in a scientific setting. That page should clear up the confusion.

 

[Jimmy D]

Exactly. Well said.

What is well said?

Denying children an education in the biology because you 'don't believe it', surely we should encourage critical thinking? If the TOE is wrong as you claim wouldn't an good education help them to understand that?

 

[Jimmy D]

for all you know it's outright lies but at best theory and biased opinion.

No. For all you know it's outright lies, that is because you don't understand (or want to understand it).

The observations, discoveries and experiments performed by biologists are repeatable and the data is available for anyone to check and verify. That you don't understand it is not an argument.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But why is any of that important if we are simply gone after this life? If there are no actual lasting consequences to anything we do, and if we all just end up ceasing to exist, then none of that matters in the slightest.

After all, we are here and then we are gone, and no one really cares or can do anything about it, right?

So why bother living life in any particular way? We should all just live as we like, because no matter what we do or don't do, there is no real purpose or meaning to life.

(And that is the consequence of a truly Atheistic worldview)

No, atheism is not equivalent to nihilism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

1. This idea appears to arise from within your religion. It's not what most atheists think.
2. Who said that we are simply the result of random chance?

If we just accidentally happen to be here and will one day all cease to exist, then our existence now is pointless and meaningless.

No, it's certainly not meaningless now.