Just do your thing, no need to draw it out. Once done I'll tell you if I agreed or disagreed to whatever. Whether it pans out or not, I'm just happy to see someone doing something to make their point.
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread
- Thread starter USincognito
- Start date
- Status
Just do your thing, no need to draw it out. Once done I'll tell you if I agreed or disagreed to whatever. Whether it pans out or not, I'm just happy to see someone doing something to make their point.
Oh, so now there's too much evidence? Science can be hard and some studying is required, I'm afraid.
What is it in particular about evolution that you find difficult to understand? Common ancestry, natural selection, mutation etc? If it's common ancestry and how that can be determined through DNA, 46and2 looks like he's trying to help you in that direction.
Regarding your last sentence, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be wrong about?
Upvote
0
I already did that. This is where our whole discussion started, with the presentation of the facts in this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...kennysid-thread.7954348/page-30#post-69893428
You claimed the evidence I presented doesn't count because there were too many assumptions, but you couldn't name a single assumption. You still can't.
Upvote
0
Sorry, CMBaptist, but citing a web article that displays ignorance about science is really bad. The author makes up an ignorant "biblical creationist" who thinks natural selection is just selection (with the dumb "not new information" idea) and an "evolutionist" who is ignorant about the last 50 years of evolutionary research!
There is one lie: Biologists have no problem with natural selection being "nondirectional" because that is not the case. Natural selection drives populations in the "direction" of being fitter for their environment.
There is the misleading act of citing answersingenesis quotes rather than scientific literature or even Wikipedia.
Upvote
0
Good - then you know that siblings are a trivial example of common ancestry (well Duh!).
And so: The post is relevant to the fact that DNA shows common ancestry. It is a trivial example since in the context of evolution "common ancestry" is common descent, i.e. "sibling" species not individuals.
If you ever read and understand 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent then you will see the DNA evidence for "sibling" species.
P.S. You missed a couple of posts
The point is that anyone who know about science knows that it works using evidence, not proof as in mathematics.
Common decent makes testable, falsifiable predictions that have been verified.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I've never read the evidence you linked to/supposedly presented, not as far as I recall. Where did I say there was assumption or anything at all about that particular evidence?
Upvote
0
As I said, just do your thing...complete it. Ask along the way, the same questions if you like, as in if I agree here or there as you seem to want to, make it understandable if it gets complicated, (as I said, I'm not going to take a course in this just to draw the same conclusions) and I'll look it over, and comment.
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
It is very hard when you do not actually say "yes", but possibly half imply it. If you are unaware of how ambiguous this and many of your posts are, then feel free to thank me for alerting you to the problem. It is almost as noticeable as your commitment to insulting other members at every opportunity.
Upvote
0
46AND2
Forty six and two are just ahead of me...
- Sep 5, 2012
- 5,807
- 2,210
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Ok, so we have the grandfather (who has his ancestral research confirmed through DNA testing through his paternal line: father, grandfather, great-grandfather, etc.) who is related to a king in the early 17th century.
Now, one of the other members of that 10 person sample claims that he has written documentation that he is related to the king's wife through his maternal line: mother, grandmother, etc. This can also be confirmed through DNA.
So, if relationship tests are simply a matter of DNA similarity, as you suggest, then we should be able to determine that the second claimant is also related to the king, correct? Since the grandfather who has established ancestral relationship to the king, and the second claimant who has established relationship with the king's wife should have approximately equal similarity to the couple. In other words, if the two men are, in fact, products of the king and his wife's offspring, then they should both share approximately the same percentage of DNA with both the king and his wife. If DNA comparisons are simply about the similarity to one another, we should be able to match those percentages, and determine both our subjects are related to the king/wife couple.
Do you disagree with any of this?
Upvote
0
Really? You responded to that evidence in this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...kennysid-thread.7954348/page-30#post-69894060
Are you saying that you don't read the posts that you respond to? Actually, that wouldn't be very surprising.
In this post:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...kennysid-thread.7954348/page-30#post-69894060
So will you address the evidence now?
Upvote
0
My comment was with respect to DNA in general, and sure, I'll comment on it but as I already told you I'm not going to take a course in this so, you'll need to dumb the post down for me....way down. Explain what all the terminology means in detail...Like you were explaining it to a child. Once you do that I'll read it over, and let you know what I still don't I still don't understand, and we can move on from there.
Or something like 46And2 is doing.
Upvote
0
Before I read on, are these tests confirmed 100% accurate, and if not...how accurate in percentages?
Upvote
0
In general with respect to DNA, what is being assumed? You keep saying that there are all of these assumptions, so what assumptions are you talking about?
Upvote
0
We're working on an example now. One would be the assumption DNA proving ancestry means anything at all in supporting evolution. Stay tuned.
Upvote
0
Badger me all you like, I'm not going back to read through all this mess to see where I got what just to get you off my @ss.
You'll just have to settle with the fact, it's the general idea I got, and if you think I'm lying, that works for me too. I don't care.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
