proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

All you need do is point out that all all evolution has to support it are arguments based in similarities between the different forms.

But that would be a lie - are you encouraging a fellow Christian to lie?

As for dinosaurs, they are found in scripture as creatures God also created so there's nothing to explain. They are extinct as is 95% of all life that once lived on earth.

Dinosaurs in the bible?

Oh, like the one time a creature that hid beneath lotus leaves was mentioned?

Isn't it odd - horses, pigs, camels - these are mentioned dozens of times, but giant scary beasts of all varieties are only, sort, hinted at once?

You don't find that odd?

 

[tas8831]

Yes and if you look at some of the traits and computer code between a ford Transit Connect Van and a Ford F150 pickup truck, they are identical. The reason we don't assume they are distant cousins is because we have never seen an automobile reproduce.

Irrelevant.

I understand that chimps and humans share a genetic code that is something like 98 to 99% identical and we likewise share some nearly identical traits. But we cannot assume relation because we have never observed the actual process that would cause Chimps and humans to have "evolved" from a common ancestor.

No need to assume.

We have evidence. But you know that (and either dismiss it for no good reason or can't understand it, so ignore it).

As an aside - have you (or anyone) ever observed God create anything from nothing?

When we look at the nearly identical DNA of two humans we can assume relationship because we have also seen humans reproduce humans. Similarity alone is simply not enough to make the case.

Then it is a good thing that it is not mere similarity that is looked for. It is patterns of unique share mutations. This technique has been tested on knowns and shown to be very very accurate:

Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this is, in fact, based on tested methods:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.




Now before you go an write what the other creationists have written when I post these, let me explain - these are about the testing of the methods, NOT documenting evolution. So please do not reply with something trollish and stupid like 'the mice are still mice', ok?

We do not have the mind of the creator so we do not know what He would have been thinking when He created anything.

Special pleading; cop out.

From a scientific point of view we do not need to understand why someone did something just to demonstrate that they DID do something.

How do you demonstrate this?

Earlier, you imply it must be via direct observation, so lets see your direct observations of the creation of Adam from the dust of the ground.

Or admit that you employ double standards.

The code found in the DNA of all living things is so highly specific that there is no valid explanation for its existence apart from an intelligent source.

Mere assertion, one that ignores decades of genetics research.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Two per individual. When I say they are thousands of identified alleles for particular genes, I'm talking about within the broader human population.

So again where did they all come from?

No, two per phonetic trait. Let’s get that cleared up, not two per individual.

They were there from the beginning. Which you would understand if you accepted the fact of inbreeding reduces genetic variability. So they are certainly not increasing.

 

[Speedwell]

Claim 1. There is an external source of the universe (God) that possesses an infinite nature.

This is not a falsifiable proposition, thus it is not addressed (nor can it be disproven) by science. "

Claim 2. The infinite source of the universe possesses intelligence.

Likewise.

Archaeologists infer something was formed by human intelligence in artifacts by looking for specific design clues in which they classify by: 1. raw material (stone, metal, glass, ceramic, etc.), 2. morphology (form, including size, shape, design, functional aspects etc.), and 3. style (more elusive—including design, decoration, etc.) Artifact (archaeology) - Wikipedia

Those factors were not addressed in the wiki article linked. (Did you link the right one?) In general, such artifacts are identified by evidence of hand-working, not by their imagined functionality. Design--purpose--is generally not detected directly in an object, but inferred from evidence of manufacture. "Specificity" as evidence of design is nothing but Discovery Institute snake oil.

SETI astronomers infer intelligence by looking for specific narrow bandwidth radio signals or highly compressed light bursts. The SETI scientists use radio telescopes to listen for narrow-bandwidth radio signals from space. Such signals are not known to occur naturally, so a detection would provide evidence of extraterrestrial technology. It would imply it had an intelligent source.

Exactly. SETI investigators are looking for evidence of manufacture, from which they will infer design, just as I said. "Specificity" doesn't come into it.

Claim 3. All life was formed as individual kinds by God.

There is no evidence whatever, biblical or scientific, that the "kinds" of the Bible were intended to form an immutable divine taxonomy which evolution could never go beyond. The most plausible reading of those passages in Genesis is that they guarantee a regularity of creation--sheep don't suddenly give birth to cows, figs don't grow on apple trees, etc. They can even be seen to presage an important tenet of the theory of evolution: the principal of reproductive similarity.

 

[tas8831]

No, two per phonetic trait.

Classic.

 

[Jimmy D]

They were there from the beginning. Which you would understand if you accepted the fact of inbreeding reduces genetic variability. So they are certainly not increasing.

I see why you've latched onto this "inbreeding" thing now.

Are you suggesting that two unrelated members of a species reproducing is "inbreeding"?

Do you accept the fact that animals actually avoid inbreeding?

I don't want to confuse you with facts but....

Wolf packs generally consist of a breeding pair and their maturing offspring that help provision and protect pack young. Because the reproductive tenure in wolves is often short, reproductively mature offspring might replace their parents, resulting in sibling or parent-offspring matings. To determine the extent of incestuous pairings, we measured relatedness based on variability in 20 microsatellite loci of mated pairs, parent-offspring pairs, and siblings in two populations of gray wolves. Our 16 sampled mated pairs had values of relatedness not overlapping those of known parent-offspring or sibling dyads, which is consistent with their being unrelated or distantly related. These results suggest that full siblings or a parent and its offspring rarely mate and that incest avoidance is an important constraint on gray wolf behavioral ecology

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255582185_Is_Incest_Common_in_Gray_Wolf_Packs

Please stop saying inbreeding if you mean breeding... they're different things.

 

[xianghua]

As for calculation, you yourself have sort of done it for me in other threads. That is, you say that the chance of a given mutation occurring is something like 1/10^30. So, which argument do you want to abandon, buddy, because you can't have both since they conflict with each other. That is, you can't think the chances of specific mutations occurring are low and think that it is reasonable

yep. but im sure that even if such event will happen evolutionists will say that the fact the this happened prove evolution. actually, they already did it:

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

"Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”

 

[xianghua]

Such as?

Keep in mind that the usual 5 or 6 will not indicate that it is like up to 10% as you claimed.

according to some sources about 5% of all scientists believe in creationism. so we need to include also the id guys and i quite sure we will get about 10% that dont believe in a natural evolution or evolution at all. check also this data:

On Evolution, Biology Teachers Stray From Lesson Plan

"At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism"

 

[HitchSlap]

yep. but im sure that even if such event will happen evolutionists will say that the fact the this happened prove evolution. actually, they already did it:

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

"Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”

You might want to read Dawkin's "The Blind Watch Maker."

 

[HitchSlap]

according to some sources about 5% of all scientists believe in creationism. so we need to include also the id guys and i quite sure we will get about 10% that dont believe in a natural evolution or evolution at all. check also this data:

On Evolution, Biology Teachers Stray From Lesson Plan

"At the other extreme, 13 percent explicitly advocate creationism"

IMO, HS bio teachers should be fired for teaching myths in science class. It's a real disgrace to our education system.

 

[xianghua]

99.999% of all life is extinct would be a more accurate statement.

even if it was true- it will be true for species, not families.

 

[BradB]

But that would be a lie - are you encouraging a fellow Christian to lie?

No lie. Why would you initiate a conversation with someone you have never met by calling them a liar? Seems to me you'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just mistaken. So how about you give me your single best evidence that doesn't rely ultimately on a similarities argument. I have never seen one.

Dinosaurs in the bible? Oh, like the one time a creature that hid beneath lotus leaves was mentioned?Isn't it odd - horses, pigs, camels - these are mentioned dozens of times, but giant scary beasts of all varieties are only, sort, hinted at once?
You don't find that odd?

You are just mistaken friend. Have never read where it is written in Job 40 that God created the Behemoth? A vegetarian who's strength is in his belly with bones like iron? His tail is the size of a cedar tree, and mouth large enough to take in the river.

Or have you noticed the scaled creature of Job 41 who shakes the ground when he walks and strikes fear in the hearts of men?

 

[HitchSlap]

No lie.

There are only about a dozen professional creationists worldwide, and I can find an example of every one of them lying.

 

[gaara4158]

All you need do is point out that all all evolution has to support it are arguments based in similarities between the different forms.

That's simply not true. Evolution is based on evidence from multiple, independent disciplines including archaeology, paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, and more. It has successful applications in multiple, independent disciplines including pharmacology and agriculture, to which you in large part owe your current way of life.

So no, it's not just a bunch of eggheads noticing a few similarities between our hands and a gorilla's hand and extrapolating from there.

But this can just as easily be explained by having a common creator as it can a common ancestor.

Is there anything that can't be explained by a hypothetical creator? Such an explanation makes no predictions about what we should and shouldn't find or observe, therefore it's impossible to prove or disprove. If it can't be proven or disproved, it has no utility as an explanation. It's worthless. Evolution handily wins as an explanation even before the evidence is considered.

 

[Speedwell]

No lie. Why would you initiate a conversation with someone you have never met by calling them a liar? Seems to me you'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just mistaken. So how about you give me your single best evidence that doesn't rely ultimately on a similarities argument. I have never seen one.




You are just mistaken friend. Have never read where it is written in Job 40 that God created the Behemoth? A vegetarian who's strength is in his belly with bones like iron? His tail is the size of a cedar tree, and mouth large enough to take in the river.

Or have you noticed the scaled creature of Job 41 who shakes the ground when he walks and strikes fear in the hearts of men?

Behemoth is one of a trio of legendary monsters found in ancient Hebrew folklore, along with Leviathan and Ziz. Behemoth would have been recognized as such by any ANE reader of the book of Job. Sorry, no dinosaurs.

 

[bhsmte]

No lie. Why would you initiate a conversation with someone you have never met by calling them a liar? Seems to me you'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just mistaken. So how about you give me your single best evidence that doesn't rely ultimately on a similarities argument. I have never seen one.




You are just mistaken friend. Have never read where it is written in Job 40 that God created the Behemoth? A vegetarian who's strength is in his belly with bones like iron? His tail is the size of a cedar tree, and mouth large enough to take in the river.

Or have you noticed the scaled creature of Job 41 who shakes the ground when he walks and strikes fear in the hearts of men?

One doesnt have to meet someone in person, if they have written word from the source.

 

[Speedwell]

No lie. Why would you initiate a conversation with someone you have never met by calling them a liar? Seems to me you'd at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they were just mistaken.

Why do so many creationists do it? Why is evolution a "lie" instead of just being wrong?

 

[BradB]

Irrelevant.

relevant

No need to assume. We have evidence. But you know that (and either dismiss it for no good reason or can't understand it, so ignore it). As an aside - have you (or anyone) ever observed God create anything from nothing?

Do forensic scientists have to observe a crime take place in order to prove one very likely happened?

Then it is a good thing that it is not mere similarity that is looked for. It is patterns of unique share mutations. This technique has been tested on knowns and shown to be very very accurate:Here is a hint - similarities are certainly informative, but it is the patterns of shared, unique characters that are indicative of descent. And this is, in fact, based on tested methods:

So then you do have an example where a random mutation was observed under a controlled condition in a multi celled organism which was beneficial and information gaining? Because you don't get a free circular reasoning pass here. You say "evolution is true because patterns of mutation are observed." and when asked how do we know they are evidence for relationship? you say "Because we observe it in the known relations. Then when asked how do you know that still holds true to the unknowns? you say "Because evolution is true." That is like claiming you have invented a device that weighs invisible fairies. And being asked how do you know it is accurate? And you saying because it weighs known things accurately. Then being asked how much do invisible fairies weigh? and you respond "according to the scale they don't weigh anything."

You have to prove the basic premise that fairies even exist before you can say your fairy machine is accurate.

Now before you go an write what the other creationists have written when I post these, let me explain - these are about the testing of the methods, NOT documenting evolution. So please do not reply with something trollish and stupid like 'the mice are still mice', ok?

Again it doesn't matter how "fool proof" the test is on known things if you haven't made an observable case for the basic premise of the unknown. You can show me all day long how well your scale works on known subjects (like mice) however that doesn't make a case for how the mice came to exist to begin with. The premise here is that all life shares a common ancestor. We cannot build upon that premise as if it is a known fact and use it to claim that our test works and then claim the premise is true because our test proves it.

To prove the premise is even possible you must present an example where a random mutation was observed under a controlled condition in a multi celled organism which was beneficial and information gaining.

Here's something to consider: Since we know there are essential genes that are necessary for the viability of an organism, a logical conclusion is that an organism 1 can not evolve into organism 2 that carries organism 2 specific essential genes but do not have homologs in organism 1. All the essential genes must have homologs in its ancestor even though not necessary for the survival of the ancestor.

Special pleading; cop out.

Do you think you have to know why someone does something in order to prove they did it?

 

[BradB]

One doesnt have to meet someone in person, if they have written word from the source.

A lie by definition is someone who knows the truth and intentionally tells what he knows is false. Again one must know the person they are calling a liar in fact does know the truth and is telling what he knows is false. You do not know I know the "truth" or not, so how could you know if I was lying or not? Your attitude in this matter is very telling to your own character. I try to believe the best in everyone. Until they show me otherwise. I don't start that way.

 

[BradB]

Why do so many creationists do it? Why is evolution a "lie" instead of just being wrong?

How can I speak for what others do? I can only speak for what I do. I believe it ultimately originates from a liar. But most of those who believe it are only deceived.