How to choose between creation and evolution.

[DogmaHunter]

Narrow jaws and crowded teeth are a sign of malnutrition and possibly genetics. Well nourished people generally have larger jaws, and fewer problems with tooth crowding.

Larger brain = smaller mouth
Smaller mouth = less room for teeth

It's not rocket science.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My OP presents two options. You study each and make your choice. I choose creation based on my observation.

Your OP, is invalid.

Evolution isn't something that was studied. It is something that was concluded by studying life forms.

Creation, rather is something you believe in as an extension of a religion. It has nothing to do with the facts of reality and everything to do with religious dogma.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

According to your links, all those things are a result of, and explained by, evolution.

But as you said yourself, you pick and choose the things that suit you and "mentally block out" the rest.

I block out lots of things that don't make sense to me anymore (that the world still indulges in).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Larger brain = smaller mouth
Smaller mouth = less room for teeth

It's not rocket science.

Can we be well fed, but malnourished? The teeth tell the tale.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Your OP, is invalid.

Evolution isn't something that was studied. It is something that was concluded by studying life forms.

I thought the ToE is always a 'work in progress', never "concluded". You have only concluded that it is true, regardless of the obvious possibility that it isn't.

 

[VirOptimus]

I thought the ToE is always a 'work in progress', never "concluded". You have only concluded that it is true, regardless of the obvious possibility that it isn't.

You dont understand basic science and what it entails.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You dont understand basic science and what it entails.

Basic science good, evolution bad.

 

[Kenny'sID]

That is because it doesn't.

It is childishly dishonest for 'Christian' creationists to claim that abiogenesis is part of evolution.

It isn't.

Ah, the old "You're a dishonest Christian (general cut at Christianity) routine, that hopes to cover up an incompetent reply. You'd be much better off trying to make your point of how the start of evoplution isn't part of evolution, another classic cop out due to the fact you have no explanation.

'It is in the bible, I believe it, thats that' - your particular "science."

Makes a lot more sense than "You're particular science" of, "It started somewhere" and we'll make up the rest, then blame it on science, not yourselves, while claiming we can't argue with science.

More much needed self made convenience for the losing end.

And that my friend, is that.

 

[rjs330]

Last Universal Common Ancestor or LUCA

Oh no, another assumption. What did the LUCA evolve into first? How do you know it happened?

 

[rjs330]

Yes, which is not at all in contradiction with the fact that speciation is a vertical process of species evolving into 1 or more sub-species.

Birds, reptiles, mammals,... = all vertebrates, for example.




Yes, and all of them still belong to the same ancestral groups that they branched off from.




Insects didn't branch of from mammals. Dear, your knowledge on evolution is extremely lacking.

http://www.oceanographerschoice.com/log/wp-content/Evo_large.gif



Mammals and insects share ancestry as shown by the DNA, which can be visualized in phylogenetic trees. Family trees.

Here is a highly resolved and automatically generated tree of life, based on completely sequenced genomes:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Tree_of_life_SVG.svg



It doesn't. Creation doesn't predict any nested hierarchies. Evolution does.
Evolution explains why you don't find mammals with feathers, creation doesn't.
Evolution explains why we share thousands of ERV's with chimps, but not as much with cats, but still more with cats then with frogs. Creation doesn't.
Evolution explains our fused chromosome and why, when split, it matches chromosome 13 of chimps. Creation doesn't.

Creation doesn't explain anything. It merely asserts based on nothing other then religious beliefs. It's entire raison d'être comes from religion.



Demonstrably false.



"Precisely"?

lol

Wow just wow, all things including spiders and cats all came from a common ancestor. So somewhere somehow there was a branch created. When did that happen? How do you KNOW it happened and how do you KNOW it possible? You continue to use assumptive reasoning. Family trees show families and groups. All it shows is how some things fit. In fact the trees cannot be traced back to an original branch. Observed data indicates that it does not happen. It's an assumption. You cannot show it ever occurring.

 

[Speedwell]

I thought the ToE is always a 'work in progress', never "concluded". You have only concluded that it is true, regardless of the obvious possibility that it isn't.

All scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are regarded as only provisionally true. There is no claim of absolute truth in science.

 

[rjs330]

View attachment 223759



No.

View attachment 223760

They are another phyla. Both spiders and cats are animalia.

That's false, because cats and spiders came from a common ancestor at some point. Unless you believe there were a number of common ancestors in the beginning. Spiders and cats did not suddenly appear according to evolution, they evolved from a common ancestor. When did that happen? Show the actual observation of the ability of something like that occurring.

 

[rjs330]

All scientific theories, including the theory of evolution, are regarded as only provisionally true. There is no claim of absolute truth in science.

It sure doesn't sound like that's true where it comes to evolution. It's taught as fact.

 

[Speedwell]

Wow just wow, all things including spiders and cats all came from a common ancestor. So somewhere somehow there was a branch created. When did that happen? How do you KNOW it happened and how do you KNOW it possible? You continue to use assumptive reasoning. Family trees show families and groups. All it shows is how some things fit. In fact the trees cannot be traced back to an original branch. Observed data indicates that it does not happen. It's an assumption. You cannot show it ever occurring.

No, it's a reasonable inference which is not contradicted by any available evidence. That's all, and there is at the present time no credible alternative inference.

Calling common ancestry an "assumption" is a bit of sophistry on your part. an assumption is something you make before you start collecting evidence. An inference is something you make after you have collected some evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

It sure doesn't sound like that's true where it comes to evolution. It's taught as fact.

If you can find a school where the theory of evolution is taught as a fact, let me know and I will help you denounce them.

 

[tas8831]

Ah, the old "You're a dishonest Christian (general cut at Christianity) routine, that hopes to cover up an incompetent reply. You'd be much better off trying to make your point of how the start of evoplution isn't part of evolution, another classic cop out due to the fact you have no explanation.



Makes a lot more sense than "You're particular science" of, "It started somewhere" and we'll make up the rest, then blame it on science, not yourselves, while claiming we can't argue with science.

More much needed self made convenience for the losing end.

And that my friend, is that.

Going on ignore. Bye.

 

[tas8831]

Mere assertions.


OK - let me pick... the human obturator foramen*.

Please provide evidence that it was created.

Specialized tissues are not molecules.

But tell us all, exactly, which molecules associated with the obturator foramen were created and provide the evidence for this. Tell me about the inductive processes that produced the specialized tissues associated with it, and show me the evidence that those processes and tissues were created.

Merely saying they were does not count. And do not engage in the burden shifting fallacy by demanding I prove they were not created. YOU claimed they were created, now show that you have more than overconfident assertions.



Abiogenesis =|= evolution.


Via the acquisition or the altered expression of genes. A Genetics class will cure your ignorance of this.



Argument from personal incredulity coupled with burden shifting fallacy.


You could not support your assertions for even ONE exchange.

I suspect next you will bring out the bible verses?

Alpha?

 

[tas8831]

Evidence Is Mounting That Routine Wisdom Teeth Removal Is a Waste of Time

I still have mine, no problems. My dentist wanted to pull them years ago as they will eventually "give you trouble" he said. They never have and we laugh about it today.

I'm sure you laugh about it. You seem to laugh at lots of things you don't get.

My wisdom teeth were impacted and had to come out, as were my daughters. I still laugh about it.

That is, I still laugh when people present anecdotes as proof of something.

 

[tas8831]

Typical ad hom punctuation I've come to expect. Grow up.

Still no explanations, as usual.

By the way - 'ad hom' is not a "punctuation."

Also by the way - you, like practically every creationist I have ever encountered, does not seem to know what an "ad hom" is.

 

[tas8831]

Now, weren't you going to continue going through the rest of my examples?

Looks like he is trivially dismissing them with anecdotes of singular links of dubious relevance.