proving evolution as just a "theory"

[pitabread]

Sure it's an explanation. You just don't like the explanation.

No, it's not an explanation. It completely fails at actually explaining (i.e. the "how" part of how things were created).

"Goddidit" is not an explanation.

We can look at the world around us and see that the broad definition of kinds still applies today.

Only in a board colliquiuial manner; for example, noting that there are different species and what-not that make up our current biodiversity.

However, the assertion creationists make is the "kind" is a legitimate biological barrier limiting biological change in populations. Yet, we don't observe such a barrier in nature.

Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:20-21 - King James Version

Yes, I'm familiar with the text of Genesis 1. Again, there's no real explanation there, just story-telling which basically amounts to "God made stuff".

We don't really NEED to know the details. We might WANT to know and that is ok too. God built us that way. But we are seeking after things that have no real answer and are not relevant to our living.

It's absolutely relevant to our living. Maybe it's news to you, but the humans species depends on biology for its current survival and well-being.

Areas that are relevant include:

* Agriculture - We need to eat.
* Forestry - We're pretty dependent on sources for wood, as it's a highly used commodity in our society
* Medical research - Significantly impact our health, longevity and overall well-being.
* Conservation biology - Sustaining our environment is important for our long-term survival.

This is where I again bring up the fact that evolutionary theory is an applied science, with real-world applications to the above industries. And this includes the understanding of common ancestral relationships and applications of data sets derived from said relationships (particularly with respect to modern genomics).

So you can sit there and pretend it doesn't matter, but even a cursory glancing at modern scientific literature speaks otherwise. It absolutely matters.

At least where common ancestry is concerned. ID works just as well.

There is no current, coherent "ID model" consequently there are no applications of it.

Creationists keep saying stuff like this but are never able to demonstrate it.

Because God used common design among his creatures which allows us to find things like vaccines

"Common design" is a bumper sticker slogan, not a scientific model by which current scientific inquiry is performed.

 

[pitabread]

we can add this image as evidence for evolution too:

How is it you still haven't learned the difference between cars and living things? Seriously, this has to be a record.

 

[pitabread]

this one for instance:

Oldest Antarctic Whale Found; Shows Fast Evolution

if this finding is true then it doesnt fit well with other fossils that suppose to be more ancient but actually appeare in younger layers.

All this suggests is that whale evolution may have happened a bit faster than previously thought. It's not like they started digging up whale fossils in Precambrian rock or something.

Not sure of your point...

also: we realy need to believe that a terrestrial dog- like creature evolved into a whale in about 4-5 my?

Personal incredulity will get you nowhere.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No they don’t. Africans are not Africans because their skin is black, but because they reside on the geological continent of Africa.

-_- are you being obtuse on purpose, or am I going to have a legitimate argument saying that two Asians can have an African baby just by giving birth in Africa?

Doesn’t matter what you can do, DNA tests have no problem differentiating between Asian and African, except where their ranges overlap and they interbreed producing fertile offspring. The definition of subspecies.

-_- subspecies definition: a taxonomic category that ranks below species, usually a fairly permanent geographically isolated race.
This is why there aren't multiple subspecies of Homo sapiens around.

That you might have a problem defierentiating between subspecies in the species is a separate issue, not to be confused with anatomical differences when their DNA is distinctive.

-_- by that logic, each individual person is a different subspecies and race, because their DNA is distinct from other people.

It’s already been defined. Evolutionists just keep ignoring it is all.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

You're ignoring the fact that subspecies are also permanent populations mostly geographically isolated from other populations. Human populations interbreed with each other too much for this to apply.

And yet they are arguing about this right now. Claiming that the human genome project has conclusively shown that race can not be used to distinguish human ancestory.

Strawman: DNA has been used to trace ancestry for years, what the heck are you talking about? I, nor any other person on here, has made the claim you are arguing against.

 

[pitabread]

The details in evolution amount to little more than mutations change stuff, and no clear idea how life came about in the first place except by random chance. So detailed that explanation.

If you want to post blatantly ignorant statements, at least try to post things that aren't so easily refuted.

Just a search for 2017 papers alone on biological evolution reveals over 70,000 results. You can find entire papers dedicated to explaining the evolution of a single gene in a single species. You'll find explanations that get into levels of detail that will make your mind melt.

Likewise, searching for origin of life research again reveals a couple thousand papers, again just for 2017.

If you really want to start engaging in a pound-for-pound battle over the literature found in Genesis 1 versus the wealth of human scientific knowledge on the subject of modern biology, have at it. But it's going to be over quick.

Then we will await your detailed explanation of how life came about from non-life.

I've always wondered why creationists issue these goofy challenges. If you were really interested in learning about abiogenesis research, why not spend your time combing the scientific literature?

For anyone who is interested, the Szostak lab website is a good resource: Szostak Lab: Home

And there is a good (extremely simplified) discussion of some of that work here: Exploring Life's Origins: A Virtual Exhibit

 

[ruthiesea]

Nor am I the one ignoring Asian remain Asian, African remain African, and despite all their accumulated mutations neither one evolved into the Afro-Asian.

What you are using as examples are not subspecies. You are confusing evolutionary changes with phenotype adaptations to the environment.

 

[USincognito]

I don't. Some of these so called "earliest" horse fossils have been found at or near the surface and sometimes right next to horse fossils.

Reallly? Hyracotherium fossils have been found right next to equus fossils/bones? Do you have a source for that?

For instance the number of ribs in the middle stages jumps around from 15 to 19 before finally arriving at todays know 18 pairs. The same thing happens with lumbar vertebrae.

That's the wonder of Hox genes and the fact that horse evolution, like all lineages, was not the simple straight line imagined in the 1800s. There were many side branches that went extinct. Try taking a look at the facial variety of elephants. You would barely recognize a Gomphotherium as an elephant.

but other well established evolutionists of the time, such as George Gaylord Simpson, backed away from it and with good reason.

What "time" are you talking about? T.H. Huxley was born in 1825 and died in 1895. Simpson wasn't even born until 1902 and didn't get his PhD until the 1920s. That's a three decade difference just between Huxley's death and Simpson becoming a paleontologist.

Paleontologist O.C. Marsh even pointed out that horses with both front and hind multiple toed hooves have been found living today.

What a fascinating claim, not for the least of reasons that Marsh has been dead for 118 years.

 

[Jimmy D]

You also seemed to ignore that no mutation has ever been observed to change an Asian into anything but an Asian. Only when the Asian mates with another subspecies, like the African, is a new subspecies created.....

But do you really think a Husky is defined because it has black or brown hair? Do you really think Asians or Africans are defined by their skin color?

I can find DNA at the scene of a crime, and know if it was African, Asian or any other without recourse to the color of their skin.

Justa, you ignored this post, and Tas's similar one, why is that? I suggest having a read through the second link, although I suppose ignorance is bliss.

Please look at these articles / papers.

https://news.stanford.edu/news/2008/february27/med-genemap-022708.html

(Edit: I don't know why the pic of the gene map isn't showing, it's in the link though.)

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/268806252_fig1_Figure-1-Phylogenetic-tree-of-62-world-populations-based-on-Cavalli-Sforza's-Chord

I can't see any evidence of hybridization, can you point it out? Or should we just take your word for it?

 

[rjs330]

So says another creationist not participating in my evolution experiment I made specifically for creationists.

I already agreed with you regarding the "evolution" of creatures that might change colors or wing structure. So your experiment doesn't mean anything to me. And you already admitted that your experiment won't produce something that is completely different from what it was to begin with. So it's irrelevant.

 

[Ophiolite]

I already agreed with you regarding the "evolution" of creatures that might change colors or wing structure. So your experiment doesn't mean anything to me. And you already admitted that your experiment won't produce something that is completely different from what it was to begin with. So it's irrelevant.

I understand your reservation on this point. You are, I think, declaring belief in microevolution, but doubt (possibly total doubt) concerning macroevolution.

I would be interested to explore why you doubt macroevolution, but not in this thread where it would be off-topic and disruptive. If you are interested I propose you start a new thread where you detail the single piece of evidence you find most compelling in your rejection of macroevolution. I will then seek to respond. If you do go ahead, and I hope you do, please drop me a pm once you start the thread - just in case I miss it. Let me know either way.

 

[rjs330]

No, it's not an explanation. It completely fails at actually explaining (i.e. the "how" part of how things were created).

"Goddidit" is not an explanation.



Only in a board colliquiuial manner; for example, noting that there are different species and what-not that make up our current biodiversity.

However, the assertion creationists make is the "kind" is a legitimate biological barrier limiting biological change in populations. Yet, we don't observe such a barrier in nature.



Yes, I'm familiar with the text of Genesis 1. Again, there's no real explanation there, just story-telling which basically amounts to "God made stuff".



It's absolutely relevant to our living. Maybe it's news to you, but the humans species depends on biology for its current survival and well-being.

Areas that are relevant include:

* Agriculture - We need to eat.
* Forestry - We're pretty dependent on sources for wood, as it's a highly used commodity in our society
* Medical research - Significantly impact our health, longevity and overall well-being.
* Conservation biology - Sustaining our environment is important for our long-term survival.

This is where I again bring up the fact that evolutionary theory is an applied science, with real-world applications to the above industries. And this includes the understanding of common ancestral relationships and applications of data sets derived from said relationships (particularly with respect to modern genomics).

So you can sit there and pretend it doesn't matter, but even a cursory glancing at modern scientific literature speaks otherwise. It absolutely matters.



There is no current, coherent "ID model" consequently there are no applications of it.

Creationists keep saying stuff like this but are never able to demonstrate it.



"Common design" is a bumper sticker slogan, not a scientific model by which current scientific inquiry is performed.

What interesting is that humanity somehow existed and thrived for a very long time despite our lack of understanding how the world and life was created. And intelligent common design is just as applicable to our understanding. Accepting that God created everything with a common design just says all life has commonalities. Those commonalities help us with research and medical research. We don't need to believe in evolution from a common ancestor to have that. That's a fallacy.

Mankind was growing it's own food and surviving long before the science of biology decided we all came from a common ancestor. That's just nonsense.

God did it is an absolute explanation. Just cause you want more doesn't mean you should have more. It certainly doesn't mean you need more. It's a want. And a we all know we don't always get what we want.

Like an English philosopher once said "you don't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes you might just find you get what you need".

What you need is Jesus. The rest is just information.

 

[xianghua]

How is it you still haven't learned the difference between cars and living things? Seriously, this has to be a record.

plelase read my comment again. i actually did talked about self replicating objects. so this analogy fit well with living creatures.

All this suggests is that whale evolution may have happened a bit faster than previously thought. It's not like they started digging up whale fossils in Precambrian rock or something.

no. some whale "transitional fossils" are actually appeared after this wahle fossil. so the order of fossils isnt correct.

Personal incredulity will get you nowhere.

do you think that if we will have a self replicating car it will evolve into a submarine? if not: it will not happen in the whale case either.

 

[Ophiolite]

no. some whale "transitional fossils" are actually appeared after this wahle fossil. so the order of fossils isnt correct.

I think I see the source of your confusion. Would you describe what you understand a transitional fossil to be?

do you think that if we will have a self replicating car it will evolve into a submarine? if not: it will not happen in the whale case either.

If we actually had a self replicating car then, given the appropriate environmental challenges and suitable amendments/mutations in the self-replicating process, over a period of time, it would be very likely it would change into a submarine. The evidence that this would be possible is to be found in the case of the well validated evolution of whales.

 

[Jimmy D]

i actually did talked about self replicating objects.

They don't exist, so we don't know how they self replicate, what they're made of, how they first appeared... it's a useless analogy when there are tens of millions of pages of actual scientific data from the real world you could use to support your argument.

no. some whale "transitional fossils" are actually appeared after this wahle fossil. so the order of fossils isnt correct.

Transitional does not mean ancestral. Shouldn't you know these things if you plan to be the saviour of creation "science".

do you think that if we will have a self replicating car it will evolve into a submarine? if not: it will not happen in the whale case either.

Why not, if competition for resources drives a population t................. Whoa, almost got drawn into one of your fantastical, imaginary scenarios. No, self replicating cars do not exist.

(Edit: Drat, Ophiolite beat me to it with virtually the same points! - and more eloquently)

 

[tas8831]

Who cares?

I should think a supposed Christian would care about honesty and integrity, but given the level of evangelical support for the likes of Trump, I guess that is no longer a thing with Christians?

What do you care if someone quotes something in here without posting the source.

I care because it usually means that the plagiarist cannot understand the issues and cannot come up with their own argument.

IOW - plagiarism on a site like this is 'Sheeple-sign.'

We are not writing a thesis.

No - you are pretending to be correct via pasting the arguments of others.

Please show a verbatim cut and paste where someone did that. And please show how that is so terrible.

I will have to look up the posts, but one was done by Joshua 1 9, the other was pshun2404, and the third was someone that hasn't posted on here for a few weeks, I shall look it up, maybe tomorrow.


And it is so terrible because it is dishonest, and shows that the creationist is out of their depth but too prideful to admit it.

 

[Ophiolite]

(Edit: Drat, Ophiolite beat me to it with virtually the same points! - and more eloquently)

Eloquence is my super power.

 

[Skreeper]

do you think that if we will have a self replicating car it will evolve into a submarine? if not: it will not happen in the whale case either.

 

[Speedwell]

What interesting is that humanity somehow existed and thrived for a very long time despite our lack of understanding how the world and life was created. And intelligent common design is just as applicable to our understanding. Accepting that God created everything with a common design just says all life has commonalities. Those commonalities help us with research and medical research. We don't need to believe in evolution from a common ancestor to have that. That's a fallacy.

The difficulty I have with ID is that I have a hard time accepting that God would create a system capable of producing almost all biological structures except for a few obscure ones which He has to tinker with personally. Creationists sometimes complain that evolutionists deny God's power to create in seven days. I complain that creationists deny God's power to create a process of evolution which works properly.

 

[rjs330]

I should think a supposed Christian would care about honesty and integrity, but given the level of evangelical support for the likes of Trump, I guess that is no longer a thing with Christians?


I care because it usually means that the plagiarist cannot understand the issues and cannot come up with their own argument.

IOW - plagiarism on a site like this is 'Sheeple-sign.'


No - you are pretending to be correct via pasting the arguments of others.


I will have to look up the posts, but one was done by Joshua 1 9, the other was pshun2404, and the third was someone that hasn't posted on here for a few weeks, I shall look it up, maybe tomorrow.


And it is so terrible because it is dishonest, and shows that the creationist is out of their depth but too prideful to admit it.

Well that's your opinion. I don't see it as dishonest at all on a forum like this. You are free to believe as you like but it's not plagarism in this context. Most of us including evolutionists get their material from somewhere else besides their own heads. It's called research and learning.

You may care if you like but again it's an opinion. We all have one. It doesn't mean it's correct.

It's your opinion they are out of their depth. The majority of layman evolutionists are out of their depth as well. Most evolution proponents on this board are not scientists. They just get their info from other sources just like we do. Most of the time they don't mention their sources either. It's no big deal. I don't go running around claiming plagarism on them.

As I said no one here is writing a thesis and presenting papers. You only care because you are nit picking.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well that's your opinion. I don't see it as dishonest at all on a forum like this. You are free to believe as you like but it's not plagarism in this context. Most of us including evolutionists get their material from somewhere else besides their own heads. It's called research and learning.

You may care if you like but again it's an opinion. We all have one. It doesn't mean it's correct.

It's your opinion they are out of their depth. The majority of layman evolutionists are out of their depth as well. Most evolution proponents on this board are not scientists. They just get their info from other sources just like we do. Most of the time they don't mention their sources either. It's no big deal. I don't go running around claiming plagarism on them.

As I said no one here is writing a thesis and presenting papers. You only care because you are nit picking.

Can I ask for a clarification here please? Are we talking about short extracts from other material, quoted verbatim, or are we talking about a summary of facts, observations, ideas, whatever collected/deduced/asserted by someone else, but interpreted by the poster?