proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Aman777]

Yes still an assumption. We assume that chimps and humans are related and that we came from a common ancestor. It's assumed that the commonality of the coding sequences mean we came from a common ancestor. It's still an assumption.

Amen, it's a False assumption of Godless men who have rejected the story of the flood, in favor of lowering our position in the creation. The ToE is incomplete since it cannot tell us HOW we obtained our superior intelligence, which is like God's. Gen 3:22 They falsely assume that mindless Nature placed it there since they view magical evolution as a force, instead of a concept.

The ToE is historically incorrect since the FIRST traits of modern Humans suddenly appeared exactly where and when the Ark arrived. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE The ToE is also irrelevant since it is nothing more than changes within a population over time within His and Their kinds. All you have to do to believe in Evolutionism is to believe that Humans know more than God. Such is the arrogance of those who try to support the unsupportable ToE.

The ToE is scientifically incorrect since it cannot show the process by which mindless Nature placed such a powerful force inside the bodies of Apes...one time...which NEVER can be repeated. Like Trump they say, Just believe us and have faith in man's changeable Science, so called. At best, the ToE is the view of Godless men in opposition to what God told us in Genesis. They don't know that a special punishment awaits those who offend little children who believe in Jesus Mat 18:6 by force teaching them the biggest Satanic Lie ever told. Amen?

 

[Astrophile]

In the late 1970s steady state theory was still being taught in physics. The reason given by my physics professor that Big Bang cosmology wasn't predominant was not evidential, but rather philosophical.

When I was at university in the early 1970s, steady-state theory was not being taught in astronomy. The discoveries of quasars (in 1963) and of the cosmic microwave background (in 1965) had killed it. So far as I can remember, even in the 1960s, when I was at secondary school, most cosmologists preferred the Big Bang or primeval atom cosmology to the steady state. Your physics professor appears to have been behind the times.

If the universe began to exist then there must be a cause for that existence that was outside of space, time matter and energy!

It's a bit more complicated than that. It appears that because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, a vacuum is unstable, and particles and fields are continually coming into existence and then annihilating each other. According to Stephen Hawking, on pages 144-145 of The Grand Design, 'there is no such thing as empty space. That is because empty space means that both the value of a field and its rate of change are exactly zero. ... Since the uncertainty principle does not allow the values of both the field and the rate of change to be exact, space is never empty. It can have a state of minimum energy, called the vacuum, but that state is subject to what are called quantum jitters, or vacuum fluctuations - particles and fields quivering in and out of existence.' Lawrence Krauss, on page 153 of A Universe from Nothing, actually says, as the title of his chapter 10, 'Nothing is Unstable'. It therefore looks as if space-time and mass-energy can come into existence from the instability of the vacuum.

You might like to read A Universe from Nothing, by A.V. Filippenko and Jay M. Pasachoff - https://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ - and 'Much Ado About Nothing' by Michael Schermer - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/much-ado-about-nothing/ . These articles will provide you with more information.

Einstein said if there is a beginning to the universe there must be a Beginner!

Can you please give a reference for this quotation?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I assume you are suggesting an analogy?

It appears to be a non-sequitur.

Evolution certainly has a 150-year history of contaversial claims.

Cosmogony does not!

However we had the evidence for and expanding universe since GTR and Edwin Hubble (1915 and 1925 respectively).

In the late 1970s steady state theory was still being taught in physics. The reason given by my physics professor that Big Bang cosmology wasn't predominant was not evidential, but rather philosophical.

If the universe began to exist then there must be a cause for that existence that was outside of space, time matter and energy!

Einstein said is the is a beginning to the univers there must be a Beginner!

So in your attempt to disprove my claim about evolution involving an element of politics, you have guide the gentle reader to an even greater example of philosophy and personal dislike of the consequences of a theory slowing down acceptance of that theory.

So no, not an analogy, nor a non-sequitur. Both the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution are Theories in Science and the dissolution of the steady-state universe (which was never a scientific theory btw...) in favour of the Big Bang theory completely debunk your assertions above that anyone presenting evidence that completely upends an established scientific consensus would be out of a job. The discovery that led to the Big Bang theory and a number of subsequent fields of study from it have in fact earned a number of people the Nobel Award... the exact opposite of what you claim would happen.

Also, I can't find this quote you attributed to Einstein, could you reference it for me please?

Again you are making my point.

If Math research has contraversy and politics how much more so the controversial claims of evolution?

What controversial claims of evolution?? You keep asserting this asinine claim that evolution is controversial when it just isn't! In science, the Theory of Evolution is literally the most well evidenced theory we have! There is no controversy.

Mathematics is a completely unrelated field of study with many different rules and objectives than science. Of course, fields of science rely heavily on mathematics in much the same way we rely on mathematics in our everyday lives too, but as with science, we don't have to formulate a 100% proof before doing anything, it just helps us not get ripped off or conned in life if you have at least a fundamental understanding of the topic at hand.

So now you ate making up data and scenarios rather than recognize the nature of the research community in higher education.

Clearly you have not been involved in those endeavors.

I asked for evidence, and haven't made up any data or scenarios, perhaps you confuse my appropriately placed scepticism in your claims as such because I'm not simply going to take you at your word when you have demonstrably asserted falsehoods so many times in this thread already...

So again, What's the evidence for your claim that someone was sacked for providing an evidence based scientific position when this has never been the case for any other substantial ground-breaking discovery in science before?

 

[Ophiolite]

What controversial claims of evolution?? You keep asserting this asinine claim that evolution is controversial when it just isn't! In science, the Theory of Evolution is literally the most well evidenced theory we have! There is no controversy.

This paragraph is problematic. On the one hand, I agree with your third sentence (highlighted). It is not just the quantity of evidence that is convincing, but its diversity and the way in which data from one field intertwines with and supports data from another.

But - and in terms of convincing doubters it is a hugely important one - I completely disagree that evolution is without controversial claims. I'll throw in a single example; the debate over punctuated equilibrium. Controversy is what allows the theory to advance; controversy is what ensures new ideas are subject to close examination and critical thinking; controversy is what makes evolutionary science fun.

The problem is that there are two levels here, represented by this imaginary conversation, set three or four decades in the past:

Evolutionist 1: The ToE is a magnificent concept whose reality can not be seriously doubted.
Evolutionist 2: I am in complete agreement with you.
Evolutionist 1: I especially like the evidence that chloroplasts and other organelles in eukaryotes are the result of endosymbiosis.
Evolutionist 2: You're crazy. That spurious notion is the work of a demented fool.
Evolutionist 1: Crazy am I, says the cretin who has their head buried in the sand all the way up to their ankles.

At the top level there is agreement, broad and deep, that evolution is real and that the ToE, in it's current form, is a pretty good description of what's going on. At the lower, more detailed level, there is active, on-going dispute about details and about the relative importance of different mechanisms.

Creationists take the disagreements at this lower level to argue that there is disagreement at the upper level. To the doubter, the fence sitter, without an in-depth education in the subject, this can seem a convincing argument. Consequently, I believe in our discussions with creationists it is important that we make this distinction and in so doing acknowledge where controversy exists, while simultaneously embracing it and reaffirming our confidence in the fundamentals of the ToE.

 

[USincognito]

Yes still an assumption. We assume that chimps and humans are related and that we came from a common ancestor. It's assumed that the commonality of the coding sequences mean we came from a common ancestor. It's still an assumption.

ASSUMPTION!!! POOF!!!

{Smoke clears}

Well, lookie here. The evidence remains and remains unaddressed.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

This paragraph is problematic. On the one hand, I agree with your third sentence (highlighted). It is not just the quantity of evidence that is convincing, but its diversity and the way in which data from one field intertwines with and supports data from another.

But - and in terms of convincing doubters it is a hugely important one - I completely disagree that evolution is without controversial claims. I'll throw in a single example; the debate over punctuated equilibrium. Controversy is what allows the theory to advance; controversy is what ensures new ideas are subject to close examination and critical thinking; controversy is what makes evolutionary science fun.

The problem is that there are two levels here, represented by this imaginary conversation, set three or four decades in the past:

Evolutionist 1: The ToE is a magnificent concept whose reality can not be seriously doubted.
Evolutionist 2: I am in complete agreement with you.
Evolutionist 1: I especially like the evidence that chloroplasts and other organelles in eukaryotes are the result of endosymbiosis.
Evolutionist 2: You're crazy. That spurious notion is the work of a demented fool.
Evolutionist 1: Crazy am I, says the cretin who has their head buried in the sand all the way up to their ankles.

At the top level there is agreement, broad and deep, that evolution is real and that the ToE, in it's current form, is a pretty good description of what's going on. At the lower, more detailed level, there is active, on-going dispute about details and about the relative importance of different mechanisms.

Creationists take the disagreements at this lower level to argue that there is disagreement at the upper level. To the doubter, the fence sitter, without an in-depth education in the subject, this can seem a convincing argument. Consequently, I believe in our discussions with creationists it is important that we make this distinction and in so doing acknowledge where controversy exists, while simultaneously embracing it and reaffirming our confidence in the fundamentals of the ToE.

Agreed, I was attempting to highlight that evolution itself is not controversial, and that is true. The Mechanisms of evolution are comprehensive and as you say, they're up for debate all the time. What @Uber Genius is attempting to tie in though, is that because there is debate over these minor mechanisms, such as horizontal gene transfer and the impact it has beyond non-eukaryotic life - the whole shebang needs to be discarded in favour of his completely unsubstantiated creationist conjecture.

Anyone with an inkling of scientific education will see that as a big bright neon warning sign... You're also right in that he and his fellow creationists (along with the majority of untrained laypersons) who don't understand science and the scientific method would, sadly, see his argument as a plausible one, and these creationists pat themselves on the back as if their arguments were sound and on an even footing.

Pigeon Chess at its finest... -_-

 

[Ophiolite]

Pigeon Chess at its finest... -_-

This is completely off-topic, but your mention of chess triggered a neuron or two. The oddball comedian Emo Phillips has a wonderful line:

I like to play checkers with the old men in the park. But it's so difficult to find twenty four of them.

 

[xianghua]

Obviously that is designed because we know that humans design things like that.

thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:

Bacterial Flagellum

so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.

Further, it is made from materials that we know humans produce and manipulate.

humans also makes artificial proteins or genes (organic components). so again: the same conclusion.

despite the facts that analogies are not evidence.

the evidence is the motor itself. and as you can see- we need to conclude design even by your own critieria.

 

[xianghua]

Uh, what? I never said several traits couldn't evolve via convergent evolution.

i never said you said it. and if s everal traits can evolved by convergent evolution then a mammal traits can evolve twice. and therefore evolution can explain a 300my mammal fossil by convergent evolution too.

 

[Ophiolite]

i never said you said it. and if s everal traits can evolved by convergent evolution then a mammal traits can evolve twice. and therefore evolution can explain a 300my mammal fossil by convergent evolution too.

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

 

[xianghua]

Does the flagellum say "Made in China" on the back?

so if you will not find a label with "made in china" in this motor you cant conclude design?:

https://www.amazon.in/Maa-Ku-Kitchen-Exhaust-inches-17x17x5cm/dp/B01BWHWR00

 

[xianghua]

This is not a prediction: we already know that cellular structures are coded for by DNA.

the same with the missing chromosomes "prediction".

It's also depends on a wholly unsupported claim, "motors are the product of design."
.

so this motor isn't evidence for design:

Mini Kaze 60mm Quiet Fan

 

[Jimmy D]

thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:

Bacterial Flagellum

so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.



humans also makes artificial proteins or genes (organic components). so again: the same conclusion.



the evidence is the motor itself. and as you can see- we need to conclude design even by your own critieria.

So are you saying that humans designed the flagellum?

 

[Jimmy D]

so if you will not find a label with "made in china" in this motor you cant conclude design?:

https://www.amazon.in/Maa-Ku-Kitchen-Exhaust-inches-17x17x5cm/dp/B01BWHWR00

But I do....

And of course in most instances it is easy to detect whether or not objects are of human manufacture. I look at this fan and conclude.....Human manufacture.

 

[Jimmy D]

Do you think that this.....

Is this.....

 

[xianghua]

But I do....

And of course in most instances it is easy to detect whether or not objects are of human manufacture. I look at this fan and conclude.....Human manufacture.

but in the image i showed to you there is no "made in china" lebal. so you cant conclude design in this case according to your criteria.

 

[Jimmy D]

but in the image i showed to you there is no "made in china" lebal. so you cant conclude design in this case according to your criteria.

I know you'd prefer it if no one was allowed to do any research and we had to make hasty judgements about things, that wouldn't be very scientific though would it?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:

Bacterial Flagellum

so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.

Nope. Do we have examples of an intelligent designer building these flagellum motors before we knew they existed?

humans also makes artificial proteins or genes (organic components). so again: the same conclusion.

Again, no - unless you have examples of an intelligent designer making these proteins or genes before we did?

the evidence is the motor itself. and as you can see- we need to conclude design even by your own critieria.

Need...?? Do we only see these motors being designed and built by an intelligent designer before we built motors, or do they come about by some natural way? What are our observations on this? Even if we did only ever see an intelligent designer design and build them, we still couldn't say with 100% certainty that they couldn't come about by some other method.... like natually... as we observe...

the same with the missing chromosomes "prediction".

In a creationist model, the only reason you'd need to have 24 pairs of chromosomes in the first place was as @sfs keeps asking you, if the human genome was copied from the chimpanzee genome (or theirs from ours) which would essentially be identical to evolution (i.e. that we share that common ancestor you so want to avoid admitting to).... What was your answer to sfs on that point btw, was our genome copied from the great apes and we diverged from there? I'm not sure of a reason why we would see a fusion event as if we had 24 pairs of chromosomes in the first place otherwise...

 

[pitabread]

thanks. we also know that humans design things like that:

Bacterial Flagellum

so by this criteria we also need to conclude design in this case.

When has a human ever designed a bacterial flagellum?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually, it is.

Actually, it is not.
But we know we can count on creationists to argue against a theory that doesn't actually exist, while pretending that it is the one that does exist.

And even after people point out the strawman, they insist on pursuing it anyway.

That's what i said, more or less.

Not at all. You made no mention of natural selection's role whatsoever. And the rest of what you said also exposes quite a few misunderstandings.

But there is no such thing as a permanent part of a gene pool in evolution.

It's called "fixation". That's when a mutation in an individual ends up spreading through the population until the vast majority, if not all, members of the species have it.

Everything is continuously 'shapeshifting', only very very very sloooowly....
I didn't say permanent, i said dominated.
Maybe i should have said 'part of the gene pool', but not permanent.

Yes, maybe you should use correct terminology and actually keep the actual theory of evolution in mind, instead of the misrepresented nonsense you can read on creationist websites.