The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

[Kenny'sID]

In your own words, what would prove the ToE for you?

That's funny, what do you all really think you have with that question? Tell you what, next time you play attorney, and the judge asks you for proof your defendant didn't commit the crime, you ask him "What would it take to prove it to you?" and see how that goes.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's funny, what do you all really think you have with that question? Tell you what, next time you play attorney, and the judge asks you for proof your defendant didn't commit the crime, you ask him "What would it take to prove it to you?" and see how that goes.

I see, you think defendants prove they didnt commit crimes.

Add criminal law to the things you dont know anyting about.

 

[Kenny'sID]

And... I was right!

So, what you are saying is you were right because I wouldn't let the rules be ignored? Meaning I wouldn't do it because it wasn't what I agreed to do, and for no other reason. But if more clear twists of the truth are what you need for lack of any other defense, and to cover your desperate need to be right, I suppose I should just leave you to whatever illusion you choose to create for yourself.

LOL, You are another one I'd feel very bad aboiut putting you in the ring to prove evolution. Thought processes such as that would get you into big trouble there.

 

[VirOptimus]

So, what you are saying is you were right because I wouldn't let the rules be ignored? Meaning I wouldn't do it because it wasn't what I agreed to do, and for no other reason. But if more clear twists of the truth are what you need for lack of any other defense, and to cover your desperate need to be right, I suppose I should just leave you to whatever illusion you choose to create for yourself.

LOL, You are another one I'd feel very bad aboiut putting you in the ring to prove evolution. Thought processes such as that would get you into big trouble there.

We know that you arent debating in good faith, I just called you on it and was proven correct. You trying to dodge respnisibility is just hilarious.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I see, you think defendants prove they didnt commit crimes.

Add criminal law to the things you dont know anyting about.

I see, you think defendants prove they didnt commit crimes.

Add criminal law to the things you dont know anyting about.

Got it, instead of having what it takes to understand perfectly what I meant, you take any mistake you can possible find an milk it for all it's worth. Nothing unexpected here.

Now make the necessary changes and answer the comment or am I to just take that as your way of avoiding it altogether...I think so.

So far this exchange has been completly unproductive and fraught with the usual deceptions in effort to gain your ground. Guess it's time to wait for something worth replying to.

 

[VirOptimus]

Got it, instead of having what it takes to understand perfectly what I meant, you take any mistake you can possible find an milk it for all it's worth. Nothing unexpected here.

Now make the necessary changes and answer the comment or am I to just take that as your way of avoiding it altogether...I think so.

So far this exchange has been completly unproductive and fraught with the usual deceptions in effort to gain your ground. Guess it's time to wait for something worth replying to.

You have been shown and directed to many many things that explain the basics of the ToE and the scientific method. But all you do is saying "prove evolution for me", this shows that you arent here for a honest debate. You have for yourself decided that your interpretation of your religion trumps science (i.e. physical reality) and nothing will convince you otherwise. I'm sure you think you make som kind of point in all of this but no, we already know that ToE is the established science and that isnt even debateable.

If you want to stay ignorant thats your decision but dont blame us for your shortcomings.

 

[Yttrium]

You are aware of the criteria. Just post it here, and explain how it proves evolution is the fact you all tout it as.

Biologic evolution is a pretty broad topic. There is the fact that evolution occurs, since we observe it happening, and can study it in detail. There are scientific theories about how evolution works. There is the scientific theory that all life on Earth evolved from common ancestors (let's call this one ToE for short). We don't go around proving scientific theories. Scientific theories are simply the best explanations we can come up with for the existing evidence.

If you have a rival explanation to ToE for the diversity of life on Earth, which you do, then it comes down to which explanation makes the most sense to you. Considering the situation, I don't think anything here is going to change your mind on that.

So the question here shouldn't be whether you could be convinced that ToE is true. The question should be whether you could be convinced that ToE actually fits the evidence we see in nature, outside of the Bible. If it fits the evidence, then it's a reasonable scientific theory, and that's all it really needs to accomplish as far as science goes.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Biologic evolution is a pretty broad topic.

I understand that, and have mentioned before, I realize this could take some time and I would suggest we just refer to what we must in order to make the point. But if he insists on dragging a full study in here when he could simply sum up just what is necessary, that's up to him. I may not agree it's the best way, but I'm trying to be as accommodating as possible.

I do appreciate your bringing up the point though, it could prove helpful in that it's a reminder we should condense as much as possible and then if we need to expand on certain things, we can do so when the need arises.

 

[BNR32FAN]

@Kenny'sID
If whales evolved from terrestrial mammals we would expect to find certain things in addition to the characteristics that undeniably make them mammals.

From physiology we see that unlike fish and marine reptiles (see the ichthyosaur body plan), which move side to side, whales should move up and down just like their terrestrial counterparts do. Indeed, that is what we observe. A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

Based on the fact that we've observed atavistic legs on whales, we would expect from genetics and embryology to see that they retain anatomical or molecular vestiges for hind leg development. We observe both.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk/palaeofiles/whales/biology.htm

Cetaceans also have the gene package for limb development. In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work together to develop them, but in cetaceans that gene package is non-functioning so the limb buds never develop unless there is a problem and atavistic hand limbs actually grow.
Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan

Press release here:
05 - How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans - News - University of Florida
>> In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt. <<

I’m curious why we don’t still see all of the stages between the first and present stage of evolution? Obviously during these stages in between, life forms would’ve had to been able to survive for the “millions of years” for the process to take place. So if the process of evolution began why has it appeared to cease? If it hasn’t ceased we should still see every stage of the evolution process in every living being alive today.

 

[Ophiolite]

I’m curious why we don’t still see all of the stages between the first and present stage of evolution? Obviously during these stages in between, life forms would’ve had to been able to survive for the “millions of years” for the process to take place. So if the process of evolution began why has it appeared to cease? If it hasn’t ceased we should still see every stage of the evolution process in every living being alive today.

Could you explain why you would think this?
1. Evolution is continuing. There are abundant examples of this.
2. We do see every stage of the evolution process today: i.e. mutations occur, natural and sexual selection, and genetic drift favour some mutations and eliminate others leading to new or modified features, new or modified behaviours and eventually new species.

 

[xianghua]

2. We do see every stage of the evolution process today

actually we never seen a creature without an eye evolving an eye or a creature without a motion system evolving a motion system etc.

 

[Ophiolite]

actually we never seen a creature without an eye evolving an eye or a creature without a motion system evolving a motion system etc.

I didn't say we had. You should revisit the definition of evolution and reconsider the time frame different over which different aspects of it operate. My statement stands. Yours decays.(That's not an analogy, it's a metaphor.)

 

[Larniavc]

Over complicated explanation of creation? I'd guess that's what threw me in understanding your comment. What's complicated about creation? We are told exactly what happened, a child can understand it.

No, we’re told that it happened: not what actually happened to actualise creation. The process of creation is a mystifying black box based on the Biblical account.

 

[dickyh995]

You are twisting what "creationists" actually believe.

We don't in fact believe that God is "incapable", we believe He is entirely capable, and that He made the world and everything in it a certain way, and He made it to work a certain way, to His glory.

Just because we don't believe He left it all to random chance, does not mean we think He is "incapable." He did in fact have a very definitive plan when He created everything.

And it's all the more amazing because of that. Everything we see is the work of His hands, NOT the product of random and haphazard evolution. No, everything in our world was created with a purpose and by a loving and creative God.

What makes you think Evolution by natural selection is about random chance? I do wish people would try to have at least a cursory understanding of the theory before dismissing it. Mutations are random, selection pressure is not

 

[pitabread]

Why is that so tough to do?

Let's find out.

Do you enjoy learning?

 

[pitabread]

And... I was right!

How prophetic of you.

 

[Yttrium]

actually we never seen a creature without an eye evolving an eye or a creature without a motion system evolving a motion system etc.

If we observed creatures doing that, we would want to exterminate them, because they could quickly evolve anything they need to kill us all.

In other words, don't expect us to observe things the theories say we can't observe within human lifetimes. We don't live for millions of years.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Could you explain why you would think this?
1. Evolution is continuing. There are abundant examples of this.
2. We do see every stage of the evolution process today: i.e. mutations occur, natural and sexual selection, and genetic drift favour some mutations and eliminate others leading to new or modified features, new or modified behaviours and eventually new species.

Well for example many scientists believed we evolved from apes and often depicted what the transformation may have looked like as apes began to evolve into humans. So why don’t we see the inbetween stages that are not exactly ape and not exactly man but somewhere in between? The absence of these “missing links” indicates that the evolution process either has ceased or never took place to begin with.

 

[pitabread]

So why don’t we see the inbetween stages that are not exactly ape and not exactly man but somewhere in between?

We do.

Looking at the above picture, can you tell me where "apes" end and "humans" begin?

 

[AV1611VET]

Looking at the above picture, can you tell me where "apes" end and "humans" begin?

They were all human at one time.