Why evolution isn't scientific

[DogmaHunter]

thanks but you are wrong.

I'm not.
It's a fact that the evidence for evolution comes from multiple independent lines of evidence that all converge on the same answer. That's actually why it is such a solidly supported theory.

You can't just change one of these lines of evidence and expect the whole thing to still work.
If one of those lines of evidence no longer converge on the same answer as the other lines, then evolution theory is in trouble.

before i will explain why i want to hear 46and2 answer first since he is the one who made the claim.

His answer doesn't change the facts outlined above.
The pattern of ERV distribution, matches the pattern of comparative anatomy, the pattern of other shared DNA markers, the patter of geographic distribution, etc.

If some of these patterns produce radically different results, then evolution is in trouble.

But you are (once again) arguing about hypotheticals, because in reality, all these patterns match.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so you dont have an answer. thanks.

Indeed I don't. I'm not a paleontologist. Unlike certain other people here, I don't pretend to know better then those who study this stuff for a living.

I could google it and then post it up pretending to be smart. But I'm too honest for that.
So I just say: ask someone else.

I understand the principles, so I understand that you can't just push back the existance of a species to any random time. If you're asking me for concrete time frame so specific species, then it gets to specific for me.

I'm not going to appologise for being honest.

 

[DogmaHunter]

this is a motor too:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

No. That's a biological thing wich has similar function.

To say that because the "engine" motor is made in a factory, thus this one must be "made" too, is an equivocation fallacy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

After how many tries?

Tries of what...?

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>No animal posts because they don't have the intelligence necessary to post. Amen?

Then do it.

Wait, when you say post, do you mean post things on the net like we are doing now?

Amen. Find us ANY animal (Humans are not animals) who posts or carries on a conversation online. You cannot since they are too dumb to post. Amen?

 

[46AND2]

fine. lets go with your scenario. as i said- we can just change the phylogeny. so we will get something like this:

View attachment 240191

My, someone is getting desperate...

Besides what Dogma Hunter said, I'll add this:

The DNA of a non-primate pig-like creature would necessarily have to be much different than that of humans in order to produce the differences between the two...you know, the "blue print" or the "computer program" that you all like to claim DNA is.

So what we would be looking at, is a creature which shares more ERVs with us than chimps do, but also shares LESS of the rest of their genome with us than chimps. In other words, the phylogeny created by ERVs would contradict the phylogeny of the rest of the genome. Evolution would not be able to explain this.

 

[Heissonear]

After how many tries?

Presenting life spontaneously happenened. And the positive MUTATIONS is how life on Earth has become more and more complex, is, unreal. Heart closed.

 

[Heissonear]

My, someone is getting desperate...

Besides what Dogma Hunter said, I'll add this:

The DNA of a non-primate pig-like creature would necessarily have to be much different than that of humans in order to produce the differences between the two...you know, the "blue print" or the "computer program" that you all like to claim DNA is.

So what we would be looking at, is a creature which shares more ERVs with us than chimps do, but also shares LESS of the rest of their genome with us than chimps. In other words, the phylogeny created by ERVs would contradict the phylogeny of the rest of the genome. Evolution would not be able to explain this.

Your post shows how much trouble evolution is in.

A mess. Data is twisted in every direction.

 

[Heissonear]

It is a problem easy to see when people resort to genetic sciences to prove evolution is based on science.

How much conjecture is in the genetic sciences?

You got it.

I guess you heard the latest on CRISPR?

Yea, a Stanford professor in April 2018 was a write up "A China in a China Cabinet" in how a DNA splicing enzyme worked - and his paper was pulled from Nature.

It is called bullying when someone takes your chips from you wrongly. The company who came up with CRISPR has been losing money since May.

 

[pitabread]

Evolution is in trouble.

The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism

 

[Bungle_Bear]

so a motor isnt evidence for design. right.

How hard was that to admit?

By the way, I may start employing one of creationsists' favourite tactics - quote mining. This little gem deserves to be shouted loud and proud every time you spout your nonsense.

 

[Speedwell]

so a motor isnt evidence for design. right.

Right. It's evidence of intelligent design only if it shows evidence of human manufacture.

 

[46AND2]

Your post shows how much trouble evolution is in.

A mess. Data is twisted in every direction.

Your post shows how little you understand the argument.

 

[tas8831]

so a motor isnt evidence for design. right.

Right.

Until/unless ID creationists can provide the mechanism and the detailed, evidence supported step-by-step series of events that your Designer employed in the making of molecular motors, then all you have is wishful thinking.*

You see, that whole Theory of Evolution thing is about the mechanism by which evolution occurs. You want to be able to merely posit an alternative, with no evidence, as the default.

Don't work that way, champ.



*after all, that is what you folks demand of evolution - musn't have double standards, right?

 

[tas8831]

fine. lets go with your scenario. as i said- we can just change the phylogeny. so we will get something like this:

View attachment 240191

Wow, cool - so surely you can explain what those red lines are, and why you put them there.

 

[tas8831]

its like saying that if we will find a watch- "the designer dun it" isnt an answer.

That is right.

If you find a watch, 'the designer dun it' is simply a proclamation.

Which designer? And how do you know? What about the multitude of other watch types - digital, for example? Was it the same designer? How would you know?

At the very best, if you find a watch on earth, you could conclude that a human made it.

Which human? And how would you know? And how did this human design and make the watch? Did this human make all the pieces him or herself? All the gears, springs, etc? Or were there other humans involved?


So you can (but likely won't) see that merely positing a Designer or Creator without providing any evidence for whom the designer was, how the designer operated, etc., is something a child might do?

 

[tas8831]

this is a motor too:

Difference between Prokaryotic flagella and Eukaryotic flagella ~ Biology Exams 4 U

No, those are highly stylized diagrams of molecular biological structures that use chemical gradients to perform work. That they are metaphorically called motors should not be interpreted to mean that they are motors of the sort a human would make.

And again I have to wonder why IDcreationists think that these arguments via analogy actually have any real meaning?
Again, at best, all these analogies can mean is that these look like something a human might make. Are you positing that the Creator is a human?

 

[tas8831]

Presenting life spontaneously happenened. And the positive MUTATIONS is how life on Earth has become more and more complex, is, unreal. Heart closed.

Wow, I am totally convinced! The guy that embellished his educational background and runs away whenever evidence is presented declared something! It MUST be so!

 

[tas8831]

It is a problem easy to see when people resort to genetic sciences to prove evolution is based on science.

TRANSLATION: Being a creationist with no legitimate education or background in the relevant sciences, when people who have legitimate scientific knowledge present things that I cannot understand, I just write some dopey, insulting blow-off to hide my fear and ignorance.

How much conjecture is in the genetic sciences?

Not much - especially when you can use tested methods.

What tested methods of analysis are there for creation?

I guess you heard the latest on CRISPR?

Nope - please tell me exactly what that is, since you pretend to know.

Yea, a Stanford professor in April 2018 was a write up "A China in a China Cabinet" in how a DNA splicing enzyme worked - and his paper was pulled from Nature.

Wow. I Googled "A China in a China Cabinet" and got ZERO returns that were articles about CRISPR.

Did you make that up? See it on a creationist website?
What does it even mean? You know that there are over 100,000 papers on CRISPR in the literature, yes? But you seem to be implying that because this one paper that does not appear in a Google search by an unknown author about an unknown topic was 'pulled' that, what? Evolution is wrong? "Genetic sciences" are wrong? What is CRISPR's relevance to evolution? Do you even know?

It is called bullying when someone takes your chips from you wrongly.

It is called lying when you makes false claims referring to a phony paper.

The company who came up with CRISPR has been losing money since May.

And this is relevant to evolution how?


What about the Jammal ark hoax? How does that fare for Biblical Archaeology?


It would probably be better for you, Sin-wise, to stop pretending so much. But please, continue - you and those that act like you are actually helping our side out quite a bit.

 

[46AND2]

Your post shows how much trouble evolution is in.

A mess. Data is twisted in every direction.

All right...I'll bite...what in the world are you talking about?

Please explain to me how my post shows this?

Cause I've been trying to figure out what train of thought led you to this response, and I'm not even getting an "ah, maybe this is what he meant."