proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

Is that like those "Alternate Facts" that creationists talk about? The rest of us just call them lies.

So if we entertain your erroneous definitions for a moment, where would the incompatible ends of a ring species fit into this, would those changes in alleles be adaptation or evolution?

....soooo.... really then, we could just call them differences - the fact remains that regardless what you want to call it, it does involve changes in alleles in a population, the very definition of evolution.

In actual fact, Cetateans (dolphins, whales, etc.) came from land mammals adapting to life in the water, if you could imagine something bigger than an otter progressing to a carnivorous version of a hippo, progressing to something like a seal/walrus/manatee ==>eventually whale, then that is the progression you would see over the past 50 million or so years of its evolution.

All mammals though derived from synapsids (which is a particular type of reptile) for which we can still find living fossils today in my home country of Australia - I have a few monotremes in the form of platypuses living in a pond not far from where I live - these and echidnas are a leftover relic, mammals that still lays eggs! They literally are the inbetween species you're looking for.

Now, let's see you tapdance that away...

You, my friend, totally and completely fail at understanding what the Theory of Evolution is. This is imagination unless you can point out where this might fit in the tree of life?

No he understands it very well and your points are full of assumptions.

 

[rjs330]

I had been constructing a detailed riposte to this post. However, as I got deeper into it I realised that your approach was essentially one of sticking your fingers in your ear and saying "Na, na, na, na, na." as loudly as possible. No evidence, no data, no science, nothing will convince you. But please, if you have any respect, do not try to claim the science is faulty. That stance stinks. Hold to your faith based belief - I have no problem with that, but this disregard for sound science is sickening.

If it we're sound science then I would agree. But it's not.

 

[USincognito]

Don't look, it will be over soon!

Just putting Evolution to bed!

 

[USincognito]

No he understands it very well and your points are full of assumptions.

Assumptions! POOF!

{smoke clears}

Oh look, the evidence remains and remains unaddressed.

 

[xianghua]

You can't conclude that a motor is designed just because it is a motor.

so you can't conclude that a car is designed just because it is a car according to this logic. fine.

 

[xianghua]

Is a tomato evidence for air transport?

Superficially, this may appear to be a silly question. However, if I find a fresh tomato in Iceland, demonstrate the tomatoes cannot be successfully grown outdoors in Iceland; that there are no commercial or private ventures growing tomatoes indoors in Iceland; that no sea shipments of tomatoes have been made to Iceland; then this evidence, though not conclusive evidence, for air transport.

so a motor is evidence for design or not?

In a similar way you need to ask further questions, or contribute further observations, before anyone can properly answer as to whether or not a motor is evidence for design

so you are not sure if a motor is evidence for design or not?

 

[xianghua]

Because common descent requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates.

not realy. we can always claim for a different phylogenetic tree, or for a convergent evolution on chromosomes number (tobacco has 48 chromosomes too).secondy: creation model also requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates, since we already know that they are sharing about 98% of their genome. the logical conclusion is of course a chromosomal fusion.


and again: are you now agree that a motor is evidence for design?

 

[xianghua]

You know what else is different? It's not organic.

according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so you can't conclude that a car is designed just because it is a car according to this logic. fine.

Sure we can. After all, how many cars do you see naturally occurring?

 

[Ophiolite]

so a motor is evidence for design or not?




so you are not sure if a motor is evidence for design or not?

It appears I have been unclear. I'll try again.

Your questions are meaningless. The questions must be expanded, with relevant detail, before they become meaningful and before they can be answered. I already gave you a suggestion as to one aspect of the detail that might help: define what you mean by "motor".

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

creation model also requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates, since we already know that they are sharing about 98% of their genome. the logical conclusion is of course a chromosomal fusion.

We also by the same measurable criteria know they share a common ancestor but for some odd reason, you really, really don't want to acknowledge that point

according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't

Depends whether the organic watch shows telltale signs of inorganic manipulation, such as toolmarks of manufacture, a designer designing it and fssddhioning it into shape, etc.

 

[pitabread]

according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't.

We've had this conversation before.

Your arguments still rest on equivocation. Until you can fully appreciate the difference between living organisms, non-living things made from organic components, and things made from inorganic components, this discussion will go nowhere.

 

[sfs]

not realy.

Yes, really.

we can always claim for a different phylogenetic tree,

Well, you can, but scientists are constrained by the evidence, and other phylogenetic trees are not allowed by the evidence.

secondy: creation model also requires that humans originally had the same number of chromosomes as other primates, since we already know that they are sharing about 98% of their genome.

The part before "since" does not follow from the part after "since". It is, in fact, completely wrong, since creationists used to argue that the different number of chromosomes for humans as evidence against common descent.

To sum up: biologists actually did predict that they would find evidence for a chromosome fusion -- that's why they went and looked for it. Creationists actually did claim that there had been no fusion.

 

[Speedwell]

according to this criteria a plastic watch is evidence for design but an organic watch (made from wood) isn't.

Because plastic, as far as we know, depends on human manufacture.

 

[xianghua]

Well, you can, but scientists are constrained by the evidence, and other phylogenetic trees are not allowed by the evidence.

not according to those scientists:

https://phys.org/news/2009-06-humans-orangutans-chimps.html

"Of these features, the analysis found that humans shared 28 unique physical characteristics with orangutans, compared to only two features with chimpanzees, seven with gorillas, and seven with all three apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans). Gorillas and chimpanzees shared 11 unique characteristics."

and they aren't creationists...

It is, in fact, completely wrong, since creationists used to argue that the different number of chromosomes for humans as evidence against common descent.

1) can you provide any evidence for this claim?
2) i dont care what some creationists argue for. i gave you a simple explanation under the creation model.


i also noticed that you ignored again my simple question about the motor. wonder why...

 

[xianghua]

Because plastic, as far as we know, depends on human manufacture.

so a watch that made from gold isn't evidence for design since gold can evolve naturally?

 

[Speedwell]

so a watch that made from gold isn't evidence for design since gold can evolve naturally?

Not in the refined form one is likely to find in a manufactured watch.

 

[Speedwell]

i also noticed that you ignored again my simple question about the motor. wonder why...

Because we have all answered that question over and over again until we are sick of it. A motor is not evidence of design just because it is a motor. You can't tell whether such a thing is designed unless it shows indications of human manufacture. And the same answer applies to watches, robots and organic autogyros on the moon and all the other examples you have come up with. Function and complexity are not evidence of design.

 

[tas8831]

see here:

Here’s Why Your Eyes Seem to Be Wired 'Backward' | Smart News | Smithsonian

Improves it relative to what?

It necessitates the blind spot (making more work for the brain).

What is the evidence that this was 'designed', seeing as how many other creatures with eyes have their retinas 'wired' differently.
Birds, for example, seem to have a better set up than we do. Maybe God is a bird?

 

[tas8831]

actually yes:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...ficial-bacterial-flagellum-that-consists-of-a

and its even less complex and sophisticated then a real flagellum.

So the real flagellum (not made of metal) is unnecessarily complicated. Sounds like the Creator is not a very good Designer.

Is that your position?