proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Then why is it used so often try try and disprove the bible. Why do evolutionists come to Christian websites and post things about how evolution disproves what the Bible says?

It wouldn't be the Bible that is being questioned (not that I can read the minds of other people though...), I would think people's particular interpretations are the issue. I know I have a problem with anti-science and anti-critical thinking that a young earth and global flood belief promotes. The active denial required is dangerous, and leads to other uncritical conclusions that do lead to deaths, such as anti vaccinations and prayer vigils in lieu of medical intervention, etc.

 

[xianghua]

Small parts aren't a molecule, nor does a car put itself together either.

so if you will see a car evolving from a molecule in automatic factory you will not conclude design?

 

[Speedwell]

so if you will see a car evolving from a molecule in automatic factory you will not conclude design?

Is there any evidence your hypothetical factory was built by humans?

 

[xianghua]

We don't directly witness fish evolving into cats because that takes hundreds of millions of years. However, we do observe evolution happening in small steps. Wolves to dogs, for example.

but again: it's just variation rather then evolution. according to this logic: since we see small variations occurring in cars (for instance a car can change it's color because the sun)- therefore we can conclude that a car can evolve into an airplane.

This just proves that our criteria for determining what's designed and what's not is inherently flawed and therefore not sufficient to infer a designer as an explanation for biodiversity.

so we cant conclude that a watch is the product of design?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so if you will see a car evolving from a molecule in automatic factory you will not conclude design?

-_- I dunno, did the factory also arise from molecules through natural processes? Again, you make analogies of things that don't exist.

You might as well have asked: "Do Cadillacs and Ferraris hybridizing disprove evolution?" Since when do cars even mate, dude? With cars, we only conclude design because
1. we make cars. We can literally watch other people make them, or make them ourselves.
2. there are no natural processes which produce cars.

As long as those 2 things remain true, we will ALWAYS conclude that any car we see is designed. In any hypothetical situation in which one or both of those things is not true, there would be sufficient doubt about cars being designed. End of story, enough of your pointless hypotheticals already.

 

[gaara4158]

Are tyou actually trying to put the fact naturql selection, so


Whoa Nelly..that's only a claim.

I mean seriously, you all should know better than to assume such a thing, but they've actually got you believing it isn't just theory, but fact, when you have no earthly idea if it is or is not. Are you all listening to yourselves?

Amazing.

It’s called a hypothesis. Under the hypothesis of universal common descent given the principle of natural selection, we wouldn’t expect to be able to witness such dramatic changes in a single human lifetime. Incidentally, we observe the first fish in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years before we observe the first cats. Things line up pretty nicely.

Why does no one understand that right now I’m comparing the explanatory power of natural selection vs intelligent design, not doing an exhaustive proof of universal common descent? Do you people not read?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't care about the implications to your religion. It makes no mention of it at all. Anywhere. To the extent anyone uses it to undermine any position, religious or otherwise, it's because it explains the facts about reality. That you don't like it is inconsequential. Perhaps you should find a way to reconcile the facts with your religion, or find a better religion.

But reality doesnt seem to matter.

In real life Asian mates with Asian and produces Only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African does a new form come into existence, the Afro-Asian. The Asian did not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor did the African. They each remained the same.

In real life Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when we observe Husky mate with Mastiff does a new form appear, the Chinook. The Husky did not evolve into the Chinook, and neither did the Mastiff. They each remained the sme.

In real life this is what we also observe in the fossil record. T-Rex remains T-Rex from the oldest fossil found to the youngest one found. As does every different form of creature in the fossil record. The new forms appear suddenly, just like the Afro-Asian and Chinook appeared suddenly.

Transitory species are not missing, they never existed. Fossil A mated with fossil B and produced suddenly, just like we observe, fossil C. Fossil A did not evolve into fossil C, nor did fossil B. No one was simply around to observe them mating.

But no one yet has explained why we should ignore how we observe new forms appear for a process we have never observed? We know dog A mates with dog B and suddenly, dog C appears in the record, just as we see occurring in the fossil record, new forms suddenly appearing. Why should one ignore the observational empirical evidence for a proffered method never before observed?

Yes, yes, I know the claims about mutation, but despite all the mutations every Asian, African, Husky or Mastiff goes through at birth, they remain the same Asian, African, Husky and Mastiff. Only when two mate has actual change in form been oberved. Yes, they like to call these new forms new species, yet we understand the Chinook, although a new form, is the same species as was the Husky and Mastiff. Why proffer something different simply because all you have is bones?

The only real logical conclusion is that one mated with another to produce the new form, just as we observe today. I'll try you and see if I can get a rational discussion instead of just ad hominem attacks as the rest on here are only capable of. I am hoping at least one supporter of evolution can engage in a rational discussion.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It’s called a hypothesis. Under the hypothesis of universal common descent given the principle of natural selection, we wouldn’t expect to be able to witness such dramatic changes in a single human lifetime. Incidentally, we observe the first fish in the fossil record hundreds of millions of years before we observe the first cats. Things line up pretty nicely.

I often call it an excuse.

 

[bhsmte]

I often call it an excuse.

I am quite certain you would need to call it such.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not only that, the countries around the world, with the lowest crime rates and highest standards of living, are those with the lowest belief in gods.

Sorry, we only have statistics since 1960, But notice what happens after 1962.....

Minnesota Crime Rates 1960 - 2016

 

[PsychoSarah]

But reality doesnt seem to matter.

In real life Asian mates with Asian and produces Only Asian. African mates with African and produces only African. Only when Asian mates with African does a new form come into existence, the Afro-Asian. The Asian did not evolve into the Afro-Asian, nor did the African. They each remained the same.

What's this then?

Oh, what do you know, a mutation in skin pigment.

I also LOVE how you claim that dogs never show new traits, when the majority of new dog breeds were literally produced within the past 200 years, and when you look at the original pictures of some of the older ones, they don't even look entirely like the modern populations do.

These are the same dog breed dude. 100 years of artificial selection does a lot more than 100 years of natural selection.

Look at how much longer this breed's ears got! These are both considered standard specimens of the same breed.

Look how much shorter the legs are.

 

[gaara4158]

I often call it an excuse.

That doesn’t even make sense. What a surprise.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

LOL.

That's a nice quote from the study you've copied there, I think you accidentally left off the preceding sentence.....

The absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in grey wolves suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. However, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the mutations likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs. Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East.


It appears that when you posted your quote from that paper you accidently missed off the preceding sentence...

The absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in grey wolves suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs. However, because all small dogs possess these diagnostic mutations, the mutations likely arose early in the history of domestic dogs. Our results show that the small dog haplotype is closely related to those in Middle Eastern wolves and is consistent with an ancient origin of the small dog haplotype there. Thus, in concordance with past archeological studies, our molecular analysis is consistent with the early evolution of small size in dogs from the Middle East.


Reading on...

Previous research identified IGF1 as a major gene affecting skeletal size in domestic dogs [16]. In this study, we examined genetic variation surrounding the IGF1 gene in the progenitor of domestic dogs in order to uncover the evolutionary history of the gene. This study confirms the absence of the derived small SNP allele in the intron 2 region of IGF1 (CanFam1 44228468) in a large sample of grey wolves and further establishes the absence of a small dog associated SINE element in all wild canids and most large dog breeds. Thus, the absence of both the SINE element and SNP allele in wild canids suggests that the mutation for small body size post-dates the domestication of dogs.

So yes, the paper appears to confirm my assertion.

However, I have never claimed to be any sort of expert, may Tas could shed more light on it if you require further clarification as he is much more knowledgeable on the subject than either of us.

Because of your mioptic view, you couldnt process the difference between grey wolves, and middle eastern wolves, where the halotype was traced to instead. I understanbd your limited vision prevents you from reading more than you want to see. I understand it was absent in grey wolves, where larger dogs originated from, but present in the middle eastern wolves where the small dog originated from. That genbes get deleted n some lineages is not a surprise, why do you find it surprising that the grey wolf lost this haplotype, while the middle eastern wolf did not and passed it on?

But need i remind you that both grey wolf and middle eastern wolf are the same Kind? Oh that's right, you got no definition of species so wouldn't know the same species when you saw it. I keep forgetting that you refuse to accept the scientific definition of species, even if every scientific definition agrees with what I say and disagrees with you.

Granted if there is ambiguity in whether they mate, there might be a question as to if they are of the same species, and other means might have to be used to distinguish them. Such as lineage. But then you said you understood dogs only give birth to dogs. Then expect me to accept that dogs will become something other than dogs sometime in the future.

Yet, I am human, my parents were human, their parents human, and as far back as you care to go they will always be the same species.

And you still havent answered which shows your lack of any scientific reason. What reason makes those finches separate species?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlsc...uickly-to-environmental-changes/#447708325810

Learn, and contemplate how Darwin made his mistake.

 

[USincognito]

but both are humans. so it's not changes of kinds. can you show that fish and human shared a common descent? you cant do that and it's just a belief rather then science.

Humans are fish and there is plenty of evidence showing that humans (and all tetrapods) evolved from our fishy cousins. Neil Shubin wrote and entire book on it.
Your Inner Fish: About the Book, Awards & Reviews

And here's four different papers showing that modern tetrapod, including human, globins are the result of genome duplication in an ancient jawless fish population and subsequent mutations.

2005
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314
2007
α D -Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
2011
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/04/molbev.msr207.short
2013
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790312002709

 

[Justatruthseeker]

What's this then?

Oh, what do you know, a mutation in skin pigment.

And still Asian? Or are you classifying this one as a new subspecies? I mean race, my bad, i forget they dont classify humans like the rest of the animal kingdom, even if we are just evolved animals......

I also LOVE how you claim that dogs never show new traits, when the majority of new dog breeds were literally produced within the past 200 years, and when you look at the original pictures of some of the older ones, they don't even look entirely like the modern populations do.

These are the same dog breed dude. 100 years of artificial selection does a lot more than 100 years of natural selection.

Look at how much longer this breed's ears got! These are both considered standard specimens of the same breed.

Look how much shorter the legs are.

sigh, because they were bred for specific traits. Just as those that had Asian features chose to mate with only those that had the same features, until the entire race was set with those features. Nothing novel here, nothing diproving anything except in your own mind.

The dachshund still remains a dachshund, just with shorter legs because we continued to breed smaller legged offspring with smaller legged offspring. The dachshund never once became a different breed.

Must I repeat it again. Husky mates with Husky and produces only Husky. Mastiff mates with Mastiff and produces only Mastiff. Only when Mastiff and Husky mate is the Chinook produced.

I have stated manby times, any changes within the subspecies is minimal and only encompasses changes to noses, hair coloring, length of legs, etc. It never changes the fact that the DNA of the dachshund can always be differentiated as belonging to the dachshund, because the dachshund never becomes anything else until mated with another.

Accept reality and apply this knowledge to the fossil record.

Your pictures simply prove what I said to be true, thank you for your support!

 

[USincognito]

you actually said then that:

" Mammals don't have genes for feathers or genes for feather development. We have genes that, in birds, are used for gene development"

and i answered:

"true. so it will be no problem for evolution if we will find a mammal with feathers".

and your answer to this logical conclusion was: "Just stop. Please, just stop". very "convincing".

You think an example of evolution is a cat evolving into a dog and that watches and automobiles are analogous to living things. You hold your "logical" skills in much higher regard than the rest of us.

And yes, it does get frustrating when a Dunning-Kruger sufferer thinks his embarrassingly wrong retort is a "gotcha" response. So, let me try and make this really simple for you.
1. Mammals do not have feathers to make genes. Are we absolutely clear on that?
2. Mammals and birds have genes that, in birds are used for feather development. Do you comprehend this sentence? In birds the genes make feathers, in humans they do not. That means they are not genes for feathers. Are we absolutely clear on that?
3. As I pointed out and you either didn't understand:
>> This is akin, I have pointed out twice now, the mammals and birds both having melanocytes, but one lineages uses them for skin/fur color while the other uses them to color plumage. <<
and
>> Hoxd12 plays a role in the formation of the cetacean flipper. It also plays a role in the formation of bird wings. By your "logic", that means whales have "genes for wing development". <<
Meaning the same gene can play a different role in different developmental pathways. In mammals, for example, Sonic Hedgehog (Shh) plays a role in both hind limb development and the number of digits the manus (hand) has. Are we absolutely clear on this?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

your point? Seriousely, I have no idea why you are pointing that out...did you confuse mine with another post?

I won


Oh my, lol.

And your point? Seriously, I have no idea why you are telling me that...did you confuse one of my posts with someone else?

I won't report you but I would ask you can the insults for two reasons. They show a certain desperation due to lack of defense, and someone might report you.

Nah, he meant that for me.

And yes, they do show a certain desperation because there is no defense to observation. But then he already said he didnt accept the observational evidence as evidence. Report him, no, I have no problem fighting fire with fire. But every post he posts shows less response and more insults as the desparation increases. This from a man that supposedly follows science, but freely admits observational evidence is not evidence and is irrelevant. Just ignore him as I will be doing in the future since he cant have a rational discussion.

 

[The Times]

I know atheists who don't accept evolution
and I know atheists who are not liberals.

Since you don't provide citations for your other two points I consider them conceded and hope you don't dishonestly lie again.

Calling someone a liar and labelling them dishonest, because he does not satisfy your ego of providing citations, does in no way, shape or form concede to your confrontational and argumentative attitude.

I simply knew your persona from the first statement that you made and I was loving and curtious enough to give you the benefit of the doubt, allowing you to reconsider your approach, before attacking a stranger that you don't even know. Since you took a second snipe at me, I have politely chosen to put you on the ignore list, so that maybe in this lifetime you will learn to treat others with common courtesy and respect.

In conclusion, your confrontational and argumentative approach has been your own self defeat. I would like to help you and recommend that you come to the light and embrace Jesus Christ, so that he can clean your heart and give you inner peace, because you are worth it!

 

[pitabread]

but new species is just a variation. it's still belong to the same family and basically it's the same creature. so it's not evidence for evolution.

Of course it's evidence for evolution. It's the very process of evolution that we are observing.

 

[pitabread]

what is the problem? if you talking about the species level then we can explain it without a design. just by a natural process. but in the family level it's another story, since it's about different creatures.

Different species are different creatures.