The evidence for Evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

How about you show me where they share common traits.

As has been explained ad nauseum on these boards.... cars don't fall into a nested hierarchy as life does.

Not even from a single manufacturer.
Not even within the same productline of a single manufacturer.

They aren't comparable by any means.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

they dont .

Wow.

That must be one of the most extreme cases of head-in-sand that I ever saw...
And I talked to quite a few radical fundamentalists in my life...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

yes ,fully , i just don't believe you- there you have it .

Facts aren't things to be believed. They are things to be acknowledged.

It's factually true that whales have (broken) genes to build legs.
It's factually true that chickens have (broken) genes to build teeth.
It's factually true that humans, and all other primates, have a (broken) GULO gene.
It's factually true that humans and chimps share an enormous amount of ERV's.
It's factually true that moles have non-functioning eyeballs hidden behind a thick layer of skin.
It's factually true that a human's spine isn't really fit for bipedalism, causing lower backpains.
It's factually true that a human mouth is too small to house all the teeth, causing much pain and a need to remove "wisdom teeth".

All these things are simple facts.

You can deny them if you want.
You can put your head in the sand if you want.

But you're simply going to miss the fact that these things are simply facts.

You know, it's one thing the acknowledge verifiable facts and then simply irrationally shrug your shoulders and say "that's how the creator made it".

But to go so far as to simply deny facts that are right there for all to see, is mindblowingly irrational. So irrational, that I actually don't believe you when you say that you don't accept these things as being the facts that they are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Intelligent Design and Creationism are two different things.

cdesign proponentsists disagree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even if Darwinian evolution is true we still need an explanation for the initial cause of the irreducibly complex biological life

IC has been demonstrated to being nothing but an argument from ignorance/incredulity a billion times over. Get over it already.

The fact that science cannot yet explain that is telling.

The fact that science cannot explain a certain thing, is only evidence of ignorance of the thing not yet explained, and that more science needs to be done.

And that is it.
Or... are you preparing a blatant argument from ignorance again?

Lets say biological life is like a jack in the box(irreducibly complex). Evolution is not responsible for the function of the jack in the box, but it could be thought of as the process of the jack in the box popping open and changing from one form to another.

Is this an elaborate and obfuscating way to saying that the origins of life are not within the scope of explanation of evolution theory?

Because people who have a high school level knowledge about biology, are aware of that.

It's also not necessary to be so obfuscated about it. Just come out and say it: evolution theory doesn't explain the origins of life, nore is it meant to.
Evolution addresses the process that existing life is subject to. And nothing else.

Anyone claiming otherwise, is either ill-informed, or lying.

The real question here is who or what is responsible for the function of the jack in the box, regardless of whether or not Darwinian evolution is true or not?

No, that is not "the real" question. That's just a question. A good question. But not a question that is within the scope of evolution.
It is a question within the scope of abiogenesis. And it is a question that remains unanswered. Quite a few things are known about it though, more then creationists tend to admit, but some pieces of the puzzle are still missing.

That's fine. Again, that doesn't mean anything. It just means that more research needs to be done.

It seems Darwinian evolutionists would rather ignore this all important question because it actually has nothing to do with their theory.

Nobody ignores these questions. No matter how many times you wish to dishonestly repeat it.

Yes, dishonestly. I get to say that, because I am 110% certain that PLENTY of people here, have already informed you about the out-of-scope nature of these questions in context of evolution theory. Multiple times.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You may have missed my point. My point is that whether or not evolution is true has no bearing on God being responsible for biological life.

IOW, He is the initial causer regardless if evolution took place or not.

You seem to have skipped a few steps between "god could be the initial causer" and "god is the initial causer".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You say "nonsense." So, Social Darwinists didn't utilize an adaptation of Darwin's theory to promulgate their social schlock?

I don't see what difference it makes.

Do we all also need to stop accepting gravity, because ISIS uses it to execute gay people by throwing them from tall buildings?

Should we also all stop driving on highways, because Hitler invented the autobahn?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You've got to be kidding! This is silly. I'm here in your thread to discuss the veracity of the Theory of Evolution, and you want to turn this into a debate about semantics. Really?

Again, here's what I wrote back in post #96. Did you read all of this? Notice the words I've placed in BOLD:

You say "nonsense." So, Social Darwinists didn't utilize an adaptation of Darwin's theory to promulgate their social schlock? Germans/Nazi's didn't re-appropriate (or reconstrue) Darwin's ideas so as to buttress their own Aryan notions of superiority? Karl Marx didn't dedicate some of his work about Communism to Darwin or see the development of politics as an evolutionary process of a kind?

None of these kinds of things happened?

Furthermore, I'm not saying that the ToE led to murder ... but it did almost immediately catalyze a diversity of new social ideas based on it, one of which is still around (i.e. Communism). [Correction: I guess we unfortunately still have some skin-head types around too.]​

It doesn't matter at all what "social darwinists" did or didn't do.
It has no relation whatsoever with the truth value or accuracy of the biological theory of evolution.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It doesn't matter at all what "social darwinists" did or didn't do.
It has no relation whatsoever with the truth value or accuracy of the biological theory of evolution.

Hi TM,

Quick comment: If my starting point began with an answer to Kenny'sID in post #91, then it might be wise for you to ask for clarification about what I said to him so that you understand the context of what I said.

Of course, the fact that Social Darwinists misappropriated Darwin's theory has little to do with the biological fact of evolution itself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Let me be a little more clear with my thoughts on this.

This did not start out to be a conspiracy by man/Darwin, however it is a conspiracy by Satan.

Right, right,.... uhu....
Biology is a satanic conspiracy. Yep. Sure.

Cookie?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not sure who here made the claim but Atheists love the "science proves nothing" line, but fact is, you are correct with you rat dissection, it proved beyond a doubt, all you said it did.

It seems that you didn't understand the line of "science proves nothing".

This is in relation to hypothesis and theories.
That the heart is a blood pump, is not a theory.

That is just an observed fact.

Hypothesis/theories are never proven or considered proven. They can only be supported or proven wrong. They are never proven correct.

That is the nature of explanatory models in science. It goes for all hypothesis/theories in all fields of inquiry.

"really good theories" never become facts or laws. They explain facts and laws.

Yet the Atheist or even evolutionists, because they need what they say to be a fact in order to further their agenda, will argue there is no proof available through science still.

This particular claim makes me laugh as much as them changing definitions to fit their needs.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Like I always say: Atheists say the darnedest things.

They do Too bad that you don't understand those things, apparantly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1)Satan exists because the bible says he exists

That's some seriously warped logic.

, and if it surprises you to hear that on a Christian forum, then maybe you need to step back and consider what a Christian forum is about.

Just because you are a christian, it doesn't give you a free pass to make obviously fallacious statements.

As a christian, you should be saying this instead:
"I believe satan exists, because the bible says he does and I believe what the bible says".

Which is a very different statement from the truth claim the previous point. And it is a statement that IS perfectly in line with christian beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is just the same junk y'all keep throwing out there...unproven fairy tale hype that sounds good to someone who is easily impressed

FACT: viral insertions happen in what-can-only-be-called random spots in DNA
FACT: ERV's are inheritable
FACT: 2 individuals with the exact same ERV in the exact same spot, points to a common ancestor that had the initial infection wich resulted in the insertion which was then past on to off spring (= the 2 individuals who share the marker)
FACT: humans and chimps share thousands upon thousands such identical ERV's in identical locations.

CONCLUSION: humans and chimps share ancestors in which those infections/insertions took place.

PREDICTION: you will find no animal, other then primates, with which humans share more ERV's then with primates.

MORE GENERAL PREDICTION: the closer related 2 creatures are, the more ERV's they will share. This reflects a nested hierarchy and you shall not find any 2 creatures which "break" this hierarchy.


All these facts are verifiable and the predictions are testable.
If it's a "fairy tale", then I suggest you show the predictions to be false.

Aaaaaaaaaand GO!.

The Alternative, of course, is not a suggestion, it's a fact in my view... God did it.

Yep, that's indeed all you have.

So, on the one hand, we have a bunch of facts leading to an obvious conclusion, which even makes verifiable/testable predictions in falsifiable ways...

And on your end... we have the unfalsifiable and faith based baseless assertion that reads "goddidit".

I shouldn't have to explain which side is the intellectual honesty one....

What exactly did you expect? For me to suddenly change my religion? For me to suddenly go rock dumb and buy into what you people continue to push? Did you think you had something so complicated, I'd be awe stricken? Or figure if I didn't understand it, that would mean, "you showed me"?

I don't think anyone here expects to change the minds of fundamentalists, who have build psychological defense barriers around their religious bubbleviews of the world, in order to keep believing what they believe.

I certainly don't.

You have been given the facts and have been explained how they lead to the obvious conclusion.

Your response? "fairy tale!". Plain old religious denial. No reasons, no counter-arguments, not even a single direct addressing of any of the facts presented.

Just one-liner, handwaving, dissmissals with a good ol' "god-dun-it" at the end.

No, I don't expect any type of evidence or rational reasoning to change your mind. Because, as Dr Gregory House so famously said once "You can't reason someone out of a position that they didn't reason themselves into in the first place..."

The only thing that could change your mind, is you yourself realising that the reasoning you employ is invalid. That the arguments are fallacious and that your position is essentially one of intellectual dishonesty.

Only you can come to that realisation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Created or just happened?

False dichtomoy / strawman.

Your way sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, and the Biblical way makes perfect sense.

You mean, the strawman you put up sounds ridiculous to you....

Why do people believe your way?

Evidence.

Yes that has to be taken into consideration to. In many if not most cases, because they for whatever reason, would rather not acknowledge a God...the agenda I mentioned earlier.

Most christians have no problems with evolution.
So, in your opinion, the official stance of the Vatican is that they don't want to "acknowledge god".

Maybe you should revise your no-true-scottsman nonsense.

In the end the choice is overwhelmingly simple to me.

"simple" is an appropriate word, yes.

"god-dun-it" is indeed infinitly simpler then science / biology, which is rather hard work.

Intellectual lazyness, is what that is called.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Of course, the fact that Social Darwinists misappropriated Darwin's theory has little to do with the biological fact of evolution itself.

Indeed.

Which is exactly why I feel it is irrelevant what underlying point was being made.

In a discussion about the validity of biological evolution, there is no context in which those topics are relevant.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Indeed.

Which is exactly why I feel it is irrelevant what underlying point was being made.

In a discussion about the validity of biological evolution, there is no context in which those topics are relevant.

That's great. You can "feel" it all you want, but there was at least a social influence of sorts brought on by Darwin's THEORY of evolution, as I stated to In situ earlier. The overall point being, as I was implying to Kenny'sID, is that Darwins' ideas offered a moment of philosophical (mis)conconstrual in the 1800s, then up and through the Second World War, by which Social Darwinists ran and reapplied their interpretations of Darwin's theory, bringing about some bad political situations.

For instance, for Marx to have dedicated his Communist Theory to Darwin, there had to be the writing, printing, and distribution of Darwin's theory for Marx to have got a hold of it and, thereby, be inspired by it, thus dedicating his own writing to Darwin. Thus, no Darwin, no dedication by Marx. It's not as if Marx's dedication would have "happened anyway."

Am I not saying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution caused "evil," not all by itself. But, it did play a part in a large confluence of social influences in the world, not the least of which was seen later in the Nazi propaganda of the World War II era, as well as in the structure of thought which Marx gave to his Communist theory, and to which Lenin and Stalin heartily applied.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Am I not saying that Darwin's Theory of Evolution caused "evil," not all by itself. But, it did play a part in a large confluence of social influences in the world, not the least of which was seen later in the Nazi propaganda of the World War II era, as well as in the structure of thought which Marx gave to his Communist theory, and to which Lenin and Stalin heartily applied.

It's true that people use and abuse ideas to their own ends, often resulting in great evil; religion is the canonical example of that - so what?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's true that people use and abuse ideas to their own ends, often resulting in great evil; religion is the canonical example of that - so what?

Context is key in understanding what has transpired in the previous conversations, FB. Something which many here at CF seem to struggle with, although I do grant that entering into an existing conversation without an understanding of the prior developments in the overall thread exchange is, perhaps, a natural part of a 'forums' structure. ... it bugs me, nevertheless.

Furthermore, your statement as to the simple fact that people DO abuse ideas is a cop-out counter to my statements, offering basically nothing in the way of a real critique other than to indicate that you "don't like" what I've said. It's also a red-herring, since we're basically focused on the concept of evolution in this particular thread.

Additionally, the use of the overly generic term "religion" also makes for a cop-out statement when used to place all of the various types of religion into one single basket for critique, which tells us little to nothing about the comparative nature of each religion.

 

[pat34lee]

You do realise that, by answering those very questions and more, that the scientific process has arrived at our current understanding?

Now, if you have additional/alternative evidence which would provide a different understanding, you should present it....!

We're here all right, and how late to the party? How many years
did they believe the tonsils, appendix and other 'vestigial' organs
were useless? How many still believe in the fiction of 'junk' DNA?
Never proof, because all of it is fiction based on fantasy.

 

[Speedwell]

We're here all right, and how late to the party? How many years
did they believe the tonsils, appendix and other 'vestigial' organs
were useless? How many still believe in the fiction of 'junk' DNA?
Never proof, because all of it is fiction based on fantasy.

Never proof, only provisional confirmation and subject to disproof at any time as a consequence of new data. That's how science works.