proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Kylie]

true. but it's not evidence for a common descent.

Why not?

 

[USincognito]

I don't think he claims it's proven science, so...

Good. Because there is no such thing as proven science.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes but the point is a long established belief on the evolution of horses was falsified. Now you have a new theory that will soon be falsified when new information comes along. By comparison we have the teachings of Moses that has stood rock solid for over 3500 years. Why would you throw away what is known to be true for a teaching that is far from being proven?

I didn't post anything that suggests anything otherwise. I have no new theory, I merely asked for a creationist explanation of the thousands of equidae fossils. What did Moses say about these fossils? Your implication that it's somehow a bad thing that theories are modified as new evidence comes to light is spurious, that's how knowledge progresses, as you well know.

Let me give you an important example. If evolution was so dependable and reliable, then the Paleolithic diet would have more substance. Evolution theory states that the diet evolves along with the species. Yet science fails to be able to establish a proper diet for us based on evolutionary theory. So when the rubber meets the road the theory fails to accomplish its intended purpose.

I don't agree with you on this Joshua but it seems off topic.

Just like over time horse evolution failed and had to be replaced with a new theory.

Modified Joshua, as new data was uncovered. Failed seems a bit strong, the original ideas were too simplistic but not entirely wrong if I'm not mistaken.

You know me and you know I am a theistic evolutionist.

I know you are, which is why I find your statements strange.

But I am presenting an argument against evolution to keep the discussion going.

But you aren't, you are arguing against out dated ideas based of a lack of understanding. Have you got any issue with the current model of equidae evolution or not?

I could easily argue either side of this issue but I choose to argue against Darwin's theory in this situation. Francis Collins chooses to defend the theory, I choose to argue against it to see if we can uncover any of it's inherit weakness.

Fair enough, it seems a bit pointless though, scientific research will uncover it's weaknesses, not discussion on an internet forum between laymen.

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Acceptance or understanding of an scientific theory is not taken on faith. Maybe there's an element of trust that people doing the research etc are telling the truth, but the beauty of science is that data and findings are published and can be verified for oneself.

Hey hey friend

There is trust.

"Ioannidis' theory is that most scientific studies are wrong as a result of bias and random error, based on "simulations that show for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true"."

"There are more theories in the graveyard of science than theories that stand the test of time. Why? Because new data is always emerging and theories have to be adjusted. Theories are only as good as theories are, until new data comes along and ruins them"

What you think about these two statements?

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!

Here is another link if you would like to read

SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S FANTASTIC
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...sg=AFQjCNGCLH2QM2hMGwumX7nJfhgQwB6mSA&ampcf=1

As for why I accept it there are probably many reasons but what I've read concerning the various relevant disciplines makes perfect and logical sense to me.

Can you give me an instance for your reasons?

Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that represent a gradual change from a little dog-like little creature to the horses we see today?

G. A. Kerkut is an evolutionist who recognizes that the horse theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available -- everything on display is a reproduction, and there's no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination. He wrote: G.A. Kerkut, "The Implications of Evolution," (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), pp. 141-149:

Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses(Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

I know you creationists don't like the fact that we can observe speciation in the lab (bacterias are still bacterias! etc) so here's an example of natural selection in action.....

Speciation in real time

The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

This is not yet proven and could be erroneous. Amyways i do not see anything here as proof.

Could the Ioannidis' theory explain this article.

Therefore combining the two theories scientists predicted that marsupials migrated from what is now South America across what is now Antarctica to what is now Australia between 40 and 30 million years ago. This hypothesis led paleontologists to Antarctica to look for marsupial fossils of the appropriate age. After years of searching they found, starting in 1982, fossils on Seymour Island off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula of more than a dozen marsupial species that lived 35–40 million years ago.

Or was it a good guess.

All it shows is a guess based on what I do know about animals and natural/sexual selection, nothing more. Obviously I'm uncertain, I haven't researched it at all.

That's easy, we don't consider evolution to be an unguided process. It is guided by selective pressures.

So selected pressures solved the problem of the giraffe raising and lowering its head?

When you say guided by selective pressures, what does this mean?

Cheers hey

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

No problem. When you see your error in your last question there is hope that you can be honest

Greetings my enlightened friend

There it is!!! Spotto!!!

"hope that you can be honest".

My dear your opinion of me is fascinating but hey at least you are consistent.

I am merely correcting your continual errors.

What a happy coincidence. I thought the same but about you

No, the Bible is not a historical document, it is a mixture of folklore and claims that are supported to a degree by archaeology

Supported to a degree, love it. Lets look at one instance and see if it is supported by archaeology

Have you encountered the Biblical story of jericho - Joshua 6?

No, that is your definition. That is not what faith in the Bible is.

Well there is a easy way to prove if i made up the definition of faith friend. Type faith and meaning into google!

The word faith means complete trust in something or someone. Complete trust in God is christian 101!?!

Hebrews 11:1
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

Faith here ie is a complete trust in a God - who is not a thing in the natural universe. It is an intangible feeling and experience that can be personal. Hebrews 11:1 is a declaration.

It shows that we should have confidence to hope - believe in the God's promise. Faith in God leads to a relationship and the assurance that what seemed invisible is now too real. Faith leads to the evidence but first you must follow the formula.





Atheists just dont get it. Atheists need to see the evidence first, then they will have faith.

You need faith (complete trust) first then you get the evidence.

Or do you only agree when the word theory proceeds it?

Yet it is an earned trust. An abused child acts very differently from a child that is not abused

Wrong again. A parent that has earned trust is going to be respected by its child. Once again logic escapes yo

Your reasoning here is incredible

I disagree with you re earned trust if we are talking a child before puberty lets say 11-12. I can see an older child being rebellious to 'just' parents.

If you are a 3 yr old child and your mother says do not go on the road. Do you seriously think that mother needed to earn that childs respect to listen?

Ok then lets set up the goalposts.

We have an abused child. We have a mother. The child is 6 years old and all round average. The mother tells him not to touch the stove or he will get burnt.

If the mother abused him regularly wouldnt it be strange to the child that all of a sudden she cared for his safety?

So the abused child will touch the stove regardless because the mother has not earned enough respect?

Wrong again, and this time you are guilty of trying to redefine faith. Now it looks like you are once again verging on being openly dishonest. I knew it would not take too long. Once again, look at what I said. A child trusts a parent because of an earned trust. Not because of "faith"

Man im really at a loss here to see how his faith in his mum would not be rewarded ie no burnt hand!!!

They don't analyze it, but that is what is actually happening. I know. Logic is beyond your grasp. But children do learn from experience. You seem to have a rather low opinion of children and this is an error on your part.

The mere fact you just wrote this shows me you did not properly read my post. Read over it again.

An extremely poorly formed question. Do you see your error?

No.

Im sure you cant wait with baited breath to tell me or is it that you do not want to answer the question?

Cheers subz

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Of course not - but then again, a child doesn't always obey.. That said, the child has prior experience/reason to listen to its parents

Hey bugsy

This one answered in reply to subby.

If you conflate Trust and Faith, then sure, I trust in plenty of things/people around me just as this child would trust its parents (again, not always, but experience/evidence will remind them of the benefits of heeding a parent's word.... but that's actually coming back to evidence again)-

Answers in reply to sub z

but I do so on a reasoned background of prior experience and/or evidence, just as this child example of yours does. I trust the chair I sit on won't collapse, because of plenty of evidence in seeing others do it & the experience of having done it myself before.

So therefore this is an assumption. Because someone else did it and it worked for them. Naturally it should work for you. This is like monkey see monkey do.

This is trust in someone elses experience and an assumption. Man do not go near a construction site!

I trust my workmates won't let me down when we're on the job because of prior experience observing their capabilities and actions.

No you have trust in their abilties and they have a good reputation. They can still fail - this shows hope they wont

I cross the road using prior experience that I won't get mowed down at a pedestrian crossing, I trust the pilot of an airliner because of all the evidence of them going up and coming down safely every day of the week, etc.

Exactly. Its not like cars and airplanes to crash!

What I don't have is Faith - that is Trust without evidence or reason. The Faith I refer to is the faith invoked when a believer is asked for evidence of a God, and their response is ".... Well, you just gotta have Faith..." - well,

Have you tried?

No, no I don't. To me, that form of Faith, especially in a religious context, is irrational. I can come to believe anything on that version of Faith - I can believe in fairies on Faith,

Do fairies answer prayers, give Visions and perform the miraculous?

I can believe there's a refrigerator sized diamond buried in my back yard on Faith,

Now that would be cool

I can believe Odin and Thor are going to drop by for coffee later today on Faith.

Thor. Awesome!

No irrational thought could be ruled out if one can use Faith in the same unevidenced, unreasoned way that a believer invokes it.

How about this. I have faith if i jump off the empire state i wont die!

I can point to pretty much any believer of any other religion besides yours and they'll gleefully tell me they believe in their Deity on exactly the same Faith that you use to believe in yours.

Ok go ask, find for yourself.and then get back to me. I think you will find not all religions teach the same thing. Please excuse me, if you knew that you would not have just made that last comment

Cheers hey

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

As usual you are wrong. Logic is a too that still escapes your comprehension. There was no strawman, there was no presumption

Hey friend

Presumption
an idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability.

Because pixies are real the probability is God is not real as well.

Exaggerate. Worsen something to make it easier to attack. Sttawman.

2 birds in one bush


What u think?

 

[USincognito]

What you think about these two statements?

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!

Here is another link if you would like to read

SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S FANTASTIC

I think popular press news articles are not the best source for that sort of information.

G.A. Kerkut, "The Implications of Evolution," (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), pp. 141-149:

[Simpson, G.G., Horses(Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

Really? 1960? 1951?

 

[Jimmy D]

Hey hey friend

There is trust.

"Ioannidis' theory is that most scientific studies are wrong as a result of bias and random error, based on "simulations that show for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true"."

"There are more theories in the graveyard of science than theories that stand the test of time. Why? Because new data is always emerging and theories have to be adjusted. Theories are only as good as theories are, until new data comes along and ruins them"

What you think about these two statements?

Not breaking news: many scientific studies are ultimately proved wrong!

Here is another link if you would like to read

SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG ALL THE TIME, AND THAT'S FANTASTIC
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...sg=AFQjCNGCLH2QM2hMGwumX7nJfhgQwB6mSA&ampcf=1

Is this supposed to be news? I wouldn't particularly take issue with Ionnidis, even though he's probablyoverstating his case somewhat. On the other hand, according to his own "theory" his "theory" is probably wrong anyway. LOL at the irony. Or do you think he's correct because his ideas give you an excuse to say science is wrong.

I'll tell you what, let us know your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, from the oldest fossils to the flora and fauna we see today and I'll weigh it up and see if it offers more explanatory power than the TOE.

Can you give me an instance for your reasons?

I don't think people who've spent their lives studying in the many fields that deal with the topic are stupid / dishonest. I can read about scientific findings myself and evaluate whether they make sense. The fact that the findings of so many areas of scientific research concur. The fact that there is no opposition to the idea of common descent within the scientific community. The fact that those with a vested interest in challenging the Theory of Evolution (Creationist propaganda groups etc) have been shown to be downright wrong, resort to dishonest arguments, cannot follow the scientific method and can offer no scientic challenge or better explanation.

G. A. Kerkut is an evolutionist who recognizes that the horse theory has some faults. His main problem with the horse series is that the original fossils are not available -- everything on display is a reproduction, and there's no way of knowing which bones were really found and which were added from imagination. He wrote: G.A. Kerkut, "The Implications of Evolution," (New York: Pergamon Press, 1960), pp. 141-149:

If you're going to copy and paste from Creationist websites please cite your sources.

Maybe 70 years ago that was correct, I wouldn't know because, like you, I've got no way of fact checking.

The information I posted regarding equidae fossils was accurate and up to date. I notice you dodged my question.

Hyrocotherium (eohippus), supposedly the earliest, founding member of the horse evolution series, is not connected by intermediate fossils to the condylarths from which it supposedly evolved. [Simpson, G.G., Horses(Oxford Univ. Press, New York, 1951), pp. 105-112, 115-116.]

Is that the sound of goal posts being moved? Who mentioned condylarths?

Anyway, have there been any discoveries since the 1950s that do show intermediate fossils between the two species?

I wonder if you've read Simpson's book? Why do find him to be a reliable source? Do you know what else he wrote in the very same book? Little gems like “The story of the horse family provides one of the best means for studying the how and why of evolution."

So I repeat....

Maybe you've got a more "logical" hypothesis as to why we see thousand of fossils that represent a gradual change from a little dog-like little creature to the horses we see today?

No?

Descent with modification would explain it would it not?

The researchers hypothesize that both of these traits evolved via natural selection. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

This is not yet proven and could be erroneous. Amyways i do not see anything here as proof.

Could the Ioannidis' theory explain this article.

It's not supposed to be proof, but it's been observed, and what makes you think that the explanation is based on limited evidence?

I can see that you've got no rational argument against these findings apart from the magical creationist canards "supposition" and "science is sometimes wrong".

Maybe you can read about the research and point out the flaws in their methodolgies, I'm sure they'd be very grateful....

https://www.researchgate.net/public...olutionary_change_in_a_migratory_bird_species
https://www.researchgate.net/public...olutionary_change_in_a_migratory_bird_species

Or was it a good guess.

LOL, like when they found Tiktaalik, they're lucky devils these scientists.

So selected pressures solved the problem of the giraffe raising and lowering its head?

You tell me, you're the giraffe expert.

When you say guided by selective pressures, what does this mean?

Selective pressure is any phenomena which alters the behavior and fitness of living organisms within a given environment. It is the driving force of evolution and natural selection, and it can be divided into two types of pressure: biotic or abiotic.

link

 

[sfs]

so the rate of change for a specific type of mutation (a<-->t for instance) is similar between chimp and human. the paper itself doesnt say that this finding is evidence for a common descent.

Well, of course it doesn't say that the finding is evidence for common descent. Scientific studies of the sun don't say that they're evidence for the sun being a hot ball of gas. We don't publish studies showing things we've known for a very long time.

"The excess of transversions at CpG sites may be related to oxidative damage, since guanosine residues have been shown to be more susceptible to transversions than are other bases, when exposed to oxygen radicals in vitro"

so basically the similarity is because of a similar genetic traits. and a similar genome can be the result of a similar designer.

Nope, you've completely missed the point again. The question is, where do the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees come from? Are they the result of mutations, or were they created in place? Just answer that question.

ok. let's check this argument. are you saying that a spinning motor isnt evidence for design?

Yes, I'm saying that a spinning motor isn't evidence for design. It's also irrelevant to my challenge, which was for creationists to make any predictions at all about genetics.

 

[xianghua]

How are you getting "similar genome" from "guanosine residues are more susceptible to transversions"?

maybe it's because of my english. i changed it to "genetic trait".

Second, yes, that's right! A spinning motor is not evidence of design. This is because you don't need design to explain why there are spinning motors.

realy? if so a car isn't evidence for design too. and an airplane and a robot and so on...

By "human design," do you mean things that humans design?

yep.

It is entirely possible for similar traits to develop independently. This is called convergent evolution.

since we cant prove that even a single complex trait can evolve naturally- this is only a belief, without any scientific evidence.

 

[xianghua]

A Creation model wouldn't have that genetic scar in the middle of the chromosome

false. as you can see in my figure above- it's possible to get a fusion under the creation model too. so we dont need to involve evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Now before you answer, you should be aware that that fusion at chromosome 2 was present BEFORE the emergence of modern humans. It is found in the genomes of both Denisovans and Neanderthals...

they were fully humans.

 

[xianghua]

The odds of two groups of organisms evolving at very different points in time with exactly the same identifying features to identify both groups as mammals are so remote that the idea of convergent evolution could be dismissed.

actually we know about many examples where even sceintists cant tell if some traits are the result of convergent evolution or a common descent. this fact alone falsified this claim.

 

[tas8831]

I can not believe you brought this up. Horses did not evolve from small to big.

Do explain!

 

[xianghua]

Nope, you've completely missed the point again. The question is, where do the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees come from? Are they the result of mutations, or were they created in place? Just answer that question.

the majority of those changes can be the result of neutral mutations. and again: how it have any connection to a common descent?

Yes, I'm saying that a spinning motor isn't evidence for design. It's also irrelevant to my challenge, which was for creationists to make any predictions at all about genetics.

first: according to this logic even a car isn't evidence for design. if a spinning motor can evolve naturally then why not a car?

secondly: i dont think that evolution make any prediction about genetics. even you admit that you dont know what we should find if common descent were not true. so basically any genetic finding can fit with evolution.

 

[TBDude65]

the majority of those changes can be the result of neutral mutations. and again: how it have any connection to a common descent?




first: according to this logic even a car isn't evidence for design. if a spinning motor can evolve naturally then why not a car?

secondly: i dont think that evolution make any prediction about genetics. even you admit that you dont know what we should find if common descent were not true. so basically any genetic finding can fit with evolution.

"i dont think that evolution make any prediction about genetics."

And this statement highlights that you don't understand genetics nor do you understand what it means for a theory to make testable predictions (hypotheses).

*hands shovel*
Keep on digging

 

[tas8831]

false. as you can see in my figure above- it's possible to get a fusion under the creation model too. so we dont need to involve evolution.

Why would a creator have needed to do that?

 

[tas8831]

true. but it's not evidence for a common descent.

It is an explanation for why we see 2 chromosome 2s in chimps and 1 in humans.

It demolishes creationist arguments claiming that the differing karyotypes disprove evolution.

 

[xianghua]

"i dont think that evolution make any prediction about genetics."

And this statement highlights that you don't understand genetics nor do you understand what it means for a theory to make testable predictions (hypotheses).

so give me one theoretical finding in genetics that evolution cant explain (something that evolution doesnt predict).