A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[bhsmte]

Probably, at least to me, the strongest evidence are the twin nested hierarchies (Morphologic and genetic) in which the pattern of similarities both with phenotype and genotype closely match. Evolution explains this well and nothing else does as far as I can tell.

Here are a few more if you are interested.
Observed evolution in existing populations (Linski's work as an example)
Biogeography-Distribution of species
Plant and animal breeding-Natural and human selection work on the same dynamics.
Embryology-The similarities are amazing.

On each of these, evolution explains the dynamics and results well and no other scientific theory does.

There are a number of others but I feel the hierarchies are the strongest.


Dizredux

The fairly recent DNA evidence isn't bad either.

 

[bhsmte]

Once,

It might be worth your while to read at least some of the transcript from the Dover trial.

Behe's cross examination is something you probably need to be aware of if you are going to defend him and his ideas.

Kitzmiller Trial Transcripts | NCSE

Behe's cross begins PM 10-18 page 23.

It is an interesting read no matter what side you are on.

Dizredux

This testimony has been brought up several times before, not sure she has much interest in that.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, I see that nothing has changed. Darwinist creationists are still evading and ignoring the fact there is absolutely no evidence for the view that all of life is the result only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Instead they subtly steer the issue to common descent instead of identifying the power, source, impetus, mechanism which created all life from a single life form.

 

[bhsmte]

Well, I see that nothing has changed. Darwinist creationists are still evading and ignoring the fact there is absolutely no evidence for the view that all of life is the result only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

Instead they subtly steer the issue to common descent instead of identifying the power, source, impetus, mechanism which created all life from a single life form.

You are correct, nothing has changed.

 

[Dizredux]

Well, I see that nothing has changed. Darwinist creationists are still evading and ignoring the fact there is absolutely no evidence for the view that all of life is the result only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic processes acting on a single life form from long long ago.

You are right, there is no evidence that life is the result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic process. Since you cannot give examples of this being said either in scientific publications or in public schools, your point is irrelevant and has little significance.

Of course the same description would apply to all of the natural processes of science. I wonder if that dead horse keeps on moving. I guess if you hit it hard enough, it will. Of course, then you have to hit it some more because it still moves.

Instead they subtly steer the issue to common descent instead of identifying the power, source, impetus, mechanism which created all life from a single life form.

No, they keep on clearly and not subtly steering you to the current Theory of Evolution. You refuse to move that's all; instead you just stay where you are, pounding on your deceased horse.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

What are some of the evidences that show the ToE to be assumed true. I dont mean the whole theory spelt out just a couple of evidences that support it.

There are two ways of looking at ToE. The objective evidence and the evidence that is supportive of the theory.

The objective evidence is of course that which can be observed, the reproducibility of the evidence, and tested. This included studies such as determining environmental factors on genes and can be shown in animal breeding.

The second is historical evidence. This can not be tested in an objective manner since it can't be tested, reproduced or observed in its own time. This second area of ToE has evidence that is supportive of the theory. This is where common ancestry comes in. Genetic similarity is something that is used to support the theory.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You are right, there is no evidence that life is the result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic process. Since you cannot give examples of this being said either in scientific publications or in public schools, your point is irrelevant and has little significance.

Of course the same description would apply to all of the natural processes of science. I wonder if that dead horse keeps on moving. I guess if you hit it hard enough, it will. Of course, then you have to hit it some more because it still moves.

No, they keep on clearly and not subtly steering you to the current Theory of Evolution. You refuse to move that's all; instead you just stay where you are, pounding on your deceased horse.

Dizredux

Diz, I have a question. Why is it that non-theists use ToE and the natural processes to claim that God is not needed and that this provides a strong case against God? If ToE is neutral on the question of God, why do so many use it as an argument against God?

 

[bhsmte]

Diz, I have a question. Why is it that non-theists use ToE and the natural processes to claim that God is not needed and that this provides a strong case against God? If ToE is neutral on the question of God, why do so many use it as an argument against God?

The TOE says what it does, based on evidence to support the same. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was a Christian for 40 years and always agreed with the TOE as I was educated and clearly, the TOE had zero to do with me becoming atheist towards the Christian God. I would believe, since the majority of Christians themselves agree with the TOE, it has little to do with why non-believers don't believe in a God.

Would be interested is how Diz responds to the same.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The TOE says what it does, based on evidence to support the same. Nothing more, nothing less.

I was a Christian for 40 years and always agreed with the TOE as I was educated and clearly, the TOE had zero to do with me becoming atheist towards the Christian God. I would believe, since the majority of Christians themselves agree with the TOE, it has little to do with why non-believers don't believe in a God.

Would be interested is how Diz responds to the same.

That is not what I am asking about. Please reread my question. I am not claiming that evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

 

[lifepsyop]

Probably, at least to me, the strongest evidence are the twin nested hierarchies (Morphologic and genetic) in which the pattern of similarities both with phenotype and genotype closely match. Evolution explains this well and nothing else does as far as I can tell.

There is no objective "twin nested hierarchy" of common descent. This is extremely ambiguous at best. There are a plethora of rescue devices used when these supposed nested hierarchies run into trouble.

And there is no reason to expect similar phenotypes should not have similar genotypes in general. Claiming this as evidence is desperation.

And if two similar phenotypes do have different genotypes then evolution will just say the phenotype was convergent. Evolution doesn't explain anything, but accommodates anything.

Here are a few more if you are interested.
Observed evolution in existing populations (Linski's work as an example)

Lenski's bacteria didn't "evolve" anything after over 50,000 generations. An aerobic promoter got shuffled next to a gene for citrate transportation. It's a terrible example of evolution in action, and this is considered one of the best... most evolutionists erroneously believe the bacteria evolved the ability to digest citrate.

Biogeography-Distribution of species

Nothing really earth-shattering here. When an unexpected distribution pops up evolutionists just say things rafted, just like Creationists do. Additionally, some animals like leopards and jaguars are claimed by evolutionists to have been separated for millions of years yet can still produce offspring. All sorts of awkward scenarios like this. Of course Evolution, being so well insulated from potential falsification, can simply say mutations and selection dunnit to just about anything.

Plant and animal breeding-Natural and human selection work on the same dynamics.

A fine example of changes within limits. Plant and animal breeders found that out decades ago.

Embryology-The similarities are amazing.

Embryology is a terrible example of evidence for evolution. Certain stages of the embryos of vertebrate groups form in completely different ways. There is a "problem of homology" that has been known for decades now, where even closely related species have extremely different developmental pathways.

Sharks and rays (Chondrichthyes), despite being closely related, will develop the gut cavity in different regions of the embyro.

Certain species of flies (Dipterans) will use different genetic pathways for sex determination during early development.

And there are many more examples of such patterns. Evolutionists are always talking about how patterns of homology are proof, and then when it is contradicted they just say "well something different happened there"... This theory is a joke.

NCSE and TalkOrigins even admit the "homology problem" exists but assure their readers that evolutionists are working on it! Isn't it interesting how all the weaknesses of evolution theory are carefully swept under the rug?

On each of these, evolution explains the dynamics and results well and no other scientific theory does.

No, evolution, having the scientific robustness of a lump of jello, accommodates the results. Evolution is a fog that settles around the landscape of data.

 

[bhsmte]

That is not what I am asking about. Please reread my question. I am not claiming that evolution and Christianity are not compatible.

You asked if the TOE is used as a reason to not believe in God or exclude God.

Since most Christians agree with the TOE, that doesn't bode well for your argument and more and more Christians are agreeing with it as time goes on. Sure, there are people who will claim the TOE is evidence against God, just as there are Christians who will claim prophecies are the reason God must exist.

Overall, it would appear, the TOE, has had little impact on turning people away from God and there are likely other reasons and likely a blend of reasons, people stop believing in a God.

 

[justlookinla]

You are right, there is no evidence that life is the result of only, totally, completely, solely naturalistic process. Since you cannot give examples of this being said either in scientific publications or in public schools, your point is irrelevant and has little significance.

Of course the same description would apply to all of the natural processes of science. I wonder if that dead horse keeps on moving. I guess if you hit it hard enough, it will. Of course, then you have to hit it some more because it still moves.

I'm not sure why you're suggesting that other views are allowed for creation of all life (not abiogenesis) other than creation only, totally, completely and solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form, but you and I know that the one one creationist view is permitted in schools.

If you have an example of some other impetus for the creation of the variety and complexity of life being taught in school, please present it.

Again, this is a creationist issue.

No, they keep on clearly and not subtly steering you to the current Theory of Evolution. You refuse to move that's all; instead you just stay where you are, pounding on your deceased horse.

Dizredux

My horse is very much alive and it ain't riding away into the sunset.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm not sure why you're suggesting that other views are allowed for creation of all life (not abiogenesis) other than creation only, totally, completely and solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form, but you and I know that the one one creationist view is permitted in schools.

If you have an example of some other impetus for the creation of the variety and complexity of life being taught in school, please present it.

Again, this is a creationist issue.



My horse is very much alive and it ain't riding away into the sunset.

Keep feeding that horse, he has a big appetite.

 

[Delphiki]

If you have an example of some other impetus for the creation of the variety and complexity of life being taught in school, please present it.

Welcome to Evolution 101!

^ This is the one that's being taught in most public schools.

It does not teach "creation only, totally, completely and solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form".

Presented. Now maybe you'll want to look at it yourself so you can stop being so gratingly repetitive with that straw man claim of yours.

 

[justlookinla]

Since most Christians agree with the TOE, that doesn't bode well for your argument and more and more Christians are agreeing with it as time goes on.

This is a misleading and intellectually dishonest statement repeated by those in the Darwinist creationism camp. Most Christians, in fact no Christian, agrees with the creationist view that God wasn't involved in the creation of humanity at any level whatsoever. Darwinist creationism, under the guise of evolution, teaches that very thing.

 

[justlookinla]

Welcome to Evolution 101!

^ This is the one that's being taught in most public schools.

It does not teach "creation only, totally, completely and solely by naturalistic mechanisms acting on a single life form".

Presented. Now maybe you'll want to look at it yourself so you can stop being so gratingly repetitive with that straw man claim of yours.

Post the part which states that life is the result of anything other than naturalistic processes.

 

[justlookinla]

Keep feeding that horse, he has a big appetite.

He's a big horse!

 

[bhsmte]

This is a misleading and intellectually dishonest statement repeated by those in the Darwinist creationism camp. Most Christians, in fact no Christian, agrees with the creationist view that God wasn't involved in the creation of humanity at any level whatsoever. Darwinist creationism, under the guise of evolution, teaches that very thing.

No it's not misleading in the least.

I will state again, the majority of Christians agree with the TOE.

If you claim this simple statement is false, provide evidence that it is false, as evidence has been provided numerous times, that supports this fact.

 

[bhsmte]

He's a big horse!

Indeed. May have outgrown his usefulness.

 

[Delphiki]

Post the part which states that life is the result of anything other than naturalistic processes.

I'm not making that claim. You are. Post the part where it says that life is the result of "only, totally, completely and solely naturalistic mechanisms..." as you keep claiming it states.