proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Agreed, that’s why they faked the pilt down man evidence during the trial to get creation removed.

Uh, no. Piltdown Man was indeed a forgery (later exposed by scientists btw), but the original intent of the fake and identity of the forger isn't even known. Most likely it was faked for personal fame and there are a few suspects in that regard.

It definitely wasn't faked for the purpose of the Scopes trial, which took place over a decade later.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Well, no. If we're looking for patterns related to common ancestry based on fundamental constraints related to heridary descent, there is no reason to believe that the same patterns would hold true for "common design".

Says the man who’s definition of species he gave said interbreeding, then refused to accept it when it came to finches. So you’ll excuse me if I think you’ll say anything to support your belief.

And why not, do not all cars share the same basic patterns, even if created separately, from common design. It’s an engineering principle.

Your continued claims that everything should look exactly the same under a design scenario just points to the fact that if life was designed, it was designed with the appearance of evolution.

What appearance of evolution? Asian remains Asian. African remains African. Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff. Ahhh, you mean your belief that in the fossil record new forms came about differently than we observe them because you keep ignoring the observations?

While there is arguably a degree of 'inheritance' with respect to human engineering, it's not explicitly required. A person could conceivably engineer a vehicle completely from scratch without regard for any pre-existing design.

And yet no engineer has ever done so......

Furthermore, they could also mix and match components without any regard for hierarchy or inheritance restriction. It's perfectly possible for an engineer to retrofit a modern entertainment or navigation system into a classic car from the 1930's.

But then neither of us would be arguing common design or inheritance, so is a moot point. But you mean how a genetic engineer might splice in genes from different pea varieties, call it a new species, then evolutionists claiming it supported evolution while ignoring it supported an intelligent designer?

This would be akin to something like finding a Devonian tetrapod complete with modern human hands and feet. A designer could easily do it. Evolution? That would be far more improbable.

And if pigs had wings they would fly. Might as well ask that humans be created before water creatures. I would no more expect that than you would, so why bring up a moot point?

What you're really suggesting is that if God created the Earth's species, evolution appears to have been their process.

Why would I say that. Have you forgotten already that Asian remains Asian despite mutations at every birth in every generation? Ahh yes, here we go back to the incorrect belief about how new forms appear in the fossil record while ignoring how we do see them appear.

After all, that's the process we observe in nature and the patterns we see with respect to modern species suggests an evolutionary history based on evolutionary constraints.

I suppose you believe that considering you still have not accepted the reality of how new forms appear, let alone are willing to apply that reality to the fossil record.

Evolution is not purely random. Biochemical processes are not random. And selection relative to environmental pressures is also not strictly random.

Evolution is all random, you just feel the need to add intelligence to the mix because you realize deep inside it’s required. I do understand, there is no escaping it in one form or another. You just want a DNA strand to know it needs to mutate to fit an environment without having to admit to such.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Uh, no. Piltdown Man was indeed a forgery (later exposed by scientists btw), but the original intent of the fake and identity of the forger isn't even known. Most likely it was faked for personal fame and there are a few suspects in that regard.

It definitely wasn't faked for the purpose of the Scopes trial, which took place over a decade later.

Ahh but you see, people wanted to believe, and so they did. Just as you want to believe in evolution, and so you will. You’ll still ignore that Husky remain Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff and neither evolve into the Chinook. Still ignore the real observation of how new forms appear and refuse to apply that knowledge to the fossil record. Like those that blindly accepted Piltdown Man for 40 odd years, you’ll avoid looking closely until the damage has been done.

The shame is that you can’t accept the reality of how new forms suddenly appear and apply that scientifically to the fossil record. We both view the same fossil record. Your view is simply flawed because you won’t accept the observational fact of how new forms appear in the species. Not from mutation, but from mating.

 

[Kelly McArthur]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

You may have to check everything out and tell him about how the earth started to form small with the gathering of rocks. How the earth once formed was first black, then white, blue and when oxygen came in turned red and green, then life came forth from the mineral revolution.

From there the kingdoms began. Protozoa is ranked as a kingdom and was the first cell. From there we have fish forming with DNA and through flight or fight, DNA transformed the fish who was in flight from the predator out of the water, forming legs. From there eggs were laid, from there birds and giant lizards were formed called dinosaurs. The oxygen levels on the earth evolved large animals as well as small.

All god's came from chaos: Greek gods, Egyptian gods, and Romans liked all the gods, keeping the best ones for themselves..

Did you know amoeba is named after a god? El is the God Abram walked out with; YHWH came from the Medians, who's tribe started from Abraham and Keturah's son Median. Moses went with the Hebrews and the foreigners and had the Median's killed; also the women were raped and murdered and the younger girls were used as slaves. Moses took their god YHWH as the god of the Hebrews and you best check this out. Very interesting story especially when you know his first wife Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro who was the priest of Median, left Moses and took their two sons and went home.

Then came the Christ, our dear Lord Jesus.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I’m not asking any of you to believe in a creator. Just to accept the fact that Asian remain Asian despite mutations. That the Chinook does not evolve from the Husky or Mastiff. That new forms appear from interbreeding, not mutations. That new forms appear in the fossil record from the same process they do today, interbreeding. That the theory of evolution is simply wrong.

Now if you wish to propose a theory other than creation that actually fits empericial observation, I would be glad to listen. But all I see are people ignoring direct observation for a theory that can’t even match observation. New forms have never appeared from mutation, only from interbreeding. Yes, yes, I realize way back in the past where no one could observe anything you believe mutations created new forms, but then that belief requires we ignore how we see new forms appear in the present before our very eyes.

Don’t want to accept creation, fine, I could care less really. Just propose a theory that matches observations of how new forms actually appear. Because as the thread implies, evolution is just a theory, and a poor one at that which can’t even match observational data of how new forms actually appear.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I’m not asking any of you to believe in a creator. Just to accept the fact that Asian remain Asian despite mutations. That the Chinook does not evolve from the Husky or Mastiff. That new forms appear from interbreeding, not mutations. That new forms appear in the fossil record from the same process they do today, interbreeding. That the theory of evolution is simply wrong.

I'm sure you have mountains of critically robust, replicable data for these assertions, and I look forward to your Nobel prize speech. Every single creationist before you has utterly, abysmally failed, but no... clearly, you are something special.

 

[gaara4158]

So if we would apply the same to bears then we could say they are one subspecies with informal racial designations? Ahh, but then youll argue no, they are separate subspecies and species, even if they interbreed. Its not the informal classification I disagree with, but as I stated their refusal to classify us as they do the rest of the animal kingdom, to which your posts only prove me correct, since all the other animals have formal subspecie or specie designations.... each distinct one its own classification..... but not humans, just as i claimed from the begining and you simply in your zeal to prove me wrong, proved me correct.

You didnt pay attention, every distinct animal is classified as a subspecies within a species, but for humans and dogs.... In the rare case where two are the same subspecies, each one is given a formal designation, but not humans or dogs.... Maybe you should scroll back and read what I actually said about the classification.....

Humans are a subspecies. Homo sapiens sapiens. That’s just the way it is. The differences between all extant humans aren’t great enough to merit formal distinction the way Chimps are split between troglodytes and bonobos. The superficial differences between Asians and Africans might upset you, but to classify them as different subspecies would be applying different standards of classification for humans than all other animals.

It’s getting harder to believe you don’t understand this. But thank you for demonstrating my point that you refuse to fix your mistakes. Learning must be humiliating for you.

 

[gaara4158]

You need to do some research on taxonomy because you’re just wrong and I don’t have time to be your teacher. Finches are split into many species, modern humans aren’t. Find out why.

 

[pitabread]

Like those that blindly accepted Piltdown Man for 40 odd years, you’ll avoid looking closely until the damage has been done.

The story of Piltdown man is more complicated and nuanced than that. In fact, there were skeptics of the Piltdown man find given that it didn't fit in with other fossil evidence for the evolution of hominids. People generally didn't expect outright forgery though; just that it was a mistake.

It was however its incongruity with respect to other fossil evidence (i.e. it didn't fit the pattern) that led to the uncovering of the forgery.

 

[Jimmy D]

Says the man who’s definition of species he gave said interbreeding, then refused to accept it when it came to finches. So you’ll excuse me if I think you’ll say anything to support your belief.

I'm curious, is there a definition of "species" anywhere that states that members of closely related but separate species can never interbreed?

 

[pitabread]

Says the man who’s definition of species he gave said interbreeding, then refused to accept it when it came to finches.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.

And why not, do not all cars share the same basic patterns, even if created separately, from common design. It’s an engineering principle.

Yes and no.

People do base existing designs on pre-existing ones. Nobody is denying that. Although the implication of course is that common design need not imply a common designer. After all, copying of an existing design is something we do all the time.

However, engineers are not explicitly limited to merely copying from existing designs. If you've ever seen an engineer's workshop, they're tinkering with novel designs all the time. After all, inventions need to come from somewhere. The only real limitation is the availability of materials and basic physics.
(Although in the former case, it's not like engineers, chemists, etc, aren't above inventing new materials as well.)

What appearance of evolution? Asian remains Asian. African remains African. Husky remains Husky. Mastiff remains Mastiff.

And wolves always remain wolves. I guess God really did create all the individual dog breeds as created Kinds in your view.

So, just how many dog "kinds" are there?

</s>

And yet no engineer has ever done so......

Sure they have. Go look at when people were trying to invent the flying machine and some of the wacky designs they came up with.

Engineers tinker with novel designs all the time. It's basically their job.

But then neither of us would be arguing common design or inheritance, so is a moot point. But you mean how a genetic engineer might splice in genes from different pea varieties, call it a new species, then evolutionists claiming it supported evolution while ignoring it supported an intelligent designer?

Actually it's more like genetic engineers splicing in jellyfish genes into rabbits to make glow-in-the-dark bunnies. No seriously, that's actually been done.

Obviously such a feat is a gross violation of hereditary descent, but it's the sort of example of things that a genetic engineer isn't limited by. And consequently, a genetic engineer could create all sorts of crazy chimeric organisms but inexplicably didn't because... um... well, I don't know why they wouldn't have. Do you?

And if pigs had wings they would fly. Might as well ask that humans be created before water creatures. I would no more expect that than you would, so why bring up a moot point?

Why wouldn't you expect it though? After all, a designer could have done just that if they wanted. You have no reason not to expect it.

All you're continually arguing is that if a designer created species independently, they did so with the appearance of evolution in mind. But you've yet to explain why that would need be the case.

Evolution is all random

Again, it's not strictly "all random". Natural selection is based on pressures specific to environments, which makes selection a decidedly 'non random' process (insofar as the interaction between the environment goes). And biochemical processes and chemical interactions on which life itself is based on are non-random insofar as chemical reactions go.

You just want a DNA strand to know it needs to mutate to fit an environment without having to admit to such.

No, that would be silly. DNA doesn't "know" anything any more than the water inside the glass I'm holding "knows" it needs to take the shape of the glass.

 

[xianghua]

And of course like any statistical approach, there are going to be implicit assumptions and error margins associated with the output. All that said, we never do observe anything with respect to these reconstructions which would blatantly point to independent design.)

so if i will test about several genes\proteins and check their phylogeny, i will get the same tree by another several genes\proteins? is that your prediction? if not: where is the limit that you will agree that those genes point to an independent design?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm curious, is there a definition of "species" anywhere that states that members of closely related but separate species can never interbreed?

No, it is a strawman version of Ernst Mayr's definition the he is either purposefully abusing or does not understand:

Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species

For example, lions and tigers can interbreed, but their offspring have very limited fertility and their offspring may be sterile. It is what we would expect to see if the theory of evolution was correct. Species that are closely related can interbreed, horses and donkeys make mules, all but sterile. I already mentioned lions and tigers. He keeps bringing up Darwin's Finches and tries to claim that they all can interbreed, though he has yet to show that. He has shown that some can still interbreed and once again that is what we would expect if evolution was correct.

Sadly almost all of his arguments support the theory of evolution if one reads what few sources he ever provides.

 

[tas8831]

Ahh but you see, people wanted to believe, and so they did. Just as you want to believe in evolution, and so you will. You’ll still ignore that Husky remain Husky and Mastiff remain Mastiff and neither evolve into the Chinook. Still ignore the real observation of how new forms appear and refuse to apply that knowledge to the fossil record. Like those that blindly accepted Piltdown Man for 40 odd years, you’ll avoid looking closely until the damage has been done.

The shame is that you can’t accept the reality of how new forms suddenly appear and apply that scientifically to the fossil record. We both view the same fossil record. Your view is simply flawed because you won’t accept the observational fact of how new forms appear in the species. Not from mutation, but from mating.

Hybridization as the sole mechanism of speciation in creationism. But how?

Which of Adam and Eve's offspring hybridized with which other one to produce an Asian? An African? And where did the alleles that congregate in each 'race', that produce the characteristics of these races, come from if the races were produced via hybridization?

 

[tas8831]

so if i will test about several genes\proteins and check their phylogeny, i will get the same tree by another several genes\proteins? is that your prediction? if not: where is the limit that you will agree that those genes point to an independent design?

I sense that you trying to set up a gotcha - and it will fail, as all of your argument shave.

Creationists have tried this before - and been exposed as fools.

Take creationist engineer Walt Brown.

He wrote many years ago that his teenage son had disproved the notion that humans were related to chimps because he found a phylogeny paper in which rattlesnakes were more closely related to humans than chimps!

Someone took 2 minutes to search the literature and discovered the paper in question - Brown didn't mention that chimps (nor any other primates or mammals) were not even used in that particular study.

 

[tas8831]

Just to accept the fact that Asian remain Asian despite mutations. ... That the theory of evolution is simply wrong...

Now if you wish to propose a theory other than creation that actually fits empericial observation, I would be glad to listen.

Which of Adam and Eve's offspring hybridized with which other one to produce an Asian? An African? And where did the alleles that congregate in each 'race', that produce the characteristics of these races, come from if the races were produced via hybridization?

 

[tas8831]

The muslim ban is a good thing. I've said since 9/11 that Islam should be treated the same as the German Bund was treated during WWII. Islam is completely incompatible with the constitution of the US. It should not be treated as a religion, but as the political entity it is, and the US should be at war with this political entity. A simple reading of the Quran answers all the questions on this. But this is definitely the wrong thread to get into this.

Great - you can parrot the Trump administration's line. Bravo!

Can you find justification in the bible for this attitude?

 

[Almost there]

Great - you can parrot the Trump administration's line. Bravo!

Can you find justification in the bible for this attitude?

What does my post have to do with Trump. I've been saying this for over 15 years. And what attitude? I'm stating an opinion, not an attitude. It is an opinion on how our government should protect its citizens from hostile outside forces. It is why the Federal Government exists.

 

[Astrophile]

Just to accept the fact that Asian remain Asian despite mutations.

Tell me, did Arabs, Indians, Indonesians, Turks, Siberians, Chinese and Japanese evolve from a common Asian ancestor by a series of mutations, or they come from the mating of a 'proto-Asian' ancestor with a 'proto-Arab', 'proto-Indian, etc. ancestor? Where did the hypothetical 'proto-Arab', 'proto-Indian', etc. ancestor come from?

 

[bhsmte]

What does my post have to do with Trump. I've been saying this for over 15 years. And what attitude? I'm stating an opinion, not an attitude. It is an opinion on how our government should protect its citizens from hostile outside forces. It is why the Federal Government exists.

Attitudes, typically drive opinions.