A thread on evolution

[Subduction Zone]

not sure if you are referring to darwins tree of life, but this has recently been refuted:

New Scientist says Darwin was wrong
http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp
texscience.org – Blog
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Sorry, but that is not the case. You should read your articles rather than just reading the titles.

Or did you forget how badly you failed with the YouTube video that you linked that refuted all of your claims about peer review?

 

[Jimmy D]

every issue I have addressed, name one I havent'

Well, you didn't address my post.....

Toward a Phylogenetic Classification of Primates Based on DNA Evidence Complemented by Fossil Evidence - ScienceDirect

Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees

Conservation and evolution of gene coexpression networks in human and chimpanzee brains

Phylogenetic relations of humans and African apes from DNA sequences in the psi-eta-globin region

When you've finished demonstrating why the data presented in these is incorrect I can find a few thousand more for you.

 

[Job 33:6]

not sure if you are referring to darwins tree of life, but this has recently been refuted:

New Scientist says Darwin was wrong
http://phys.org/news152274071.html#jCp
texscience.org – Blog
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

If you read my post, you will see that I said,

Even if you didnt believe a genetic tree matches the fossil succession, im asking, if such a thing were true, what would it mean to you? Would you then believe?

And I further asked if you know what I am referring to.

 

[Job 33:6]

again my reply to this would be very similar to this post:
A thread on evolution

You know that sahelanthropus contains human like traits. If you had a skull of a human and a skull of a crocodile, you would not hesitate to say "yes sahelanthropus is more like a human than a crocodile. Because it shares traits with a human skull, as well as a chimp skull.

Which leads us to my prior post.

If hypothetically, the fossil succession, that is to say, fossils present through geologic time, if this succession of fossils matched genetic relatedness or "genetic similarity" as you put it, what would it mean to you? And do you know what I mean what I ask this question? If you would like an example, i can give an example.

 

[Skreeper]

Did you watch the video?

Yes and I feel dumber for having watched it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Not a shocker.

what exactly was quote mined, and ripped out of context, i merely posted a link. lol you dishonesty is not a shocker here either.

 

[createdtoworship]

You know that sahelanthropus contains human like traits. If you had a skull of a human and a skull of a crocodile, you would not hesitate to say "yes sahelanthropus is more like a human than a crocodile. Because it shares traits with a human skull, as well as a chimp skull.

Which leads us to my prior post.

If hypothetically, the fossil succession, that is to say, fossils present through geologic time, if this succession of fossils matched genetic relatedness or "genetic similarity" as you put it, what would it mean to you? And do you know what I mean what I ask this question? If you would like an example, i can give an example.

Biased Sample: see Unrepresentative Sample:

Unrepresentative Sample

Basically cherry picking one fact over another fact of equal authenticity, simply because of its conformity to one view or another. Typical of biased, single minded argumentation.

using a crocodile in this debate is a biased sample,

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes and I feel dumber for having watched it.

did you watch it from beginning to end? all of it? I didn't think so.

 

[createdtoworship]

Laws of science? Show me theese laws.

observation is a critical aspect of hard scientific theory. If you have no observation you do not have the ability to test any hypothesis. Evolution is untested because there is no observation of macro evolution. So to claim it is science, is wrong. It absolutely cannot be science.

 

[HitchSlap]

observation is a critical aspect of hard scientific theory. If you have no observation you do not have the ability to test any hypothesis. Evolution is untested because there is no observation of macro evolution. So to claim it is science, is wrong. It absolutely cannot be science.

Ok.

 

[Skreeper]

did you watch it from beginning to end? all of it? I didn't think so.

Yes, as I have told you repeatedly. Is this supposed to be some magic infused video that is supposed to convert me on the spot?

 

[Subduction Zone]

observation is a critical aspect of hard scientific theory. If you have no observation you do not have the ability to test any hypothesis. Evolution is untested because there is no observation of macro evolution. So to claim it is science, is wrong. It absolutely cannot be science.

Wrong, you simply have an overly limited definition of "observation". Evolution is observed and tested in many different ways. Your lack of knowledge or understanding does not mean that those tests do not occur.

 

[createdtoworship]

Ok.

So you accept that?

 

[HitchSlap]

So you accept that?

That you deliberately re-define words to support your silly assertions?

Yes.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, as I have told you repeatedly. Is this supposed to be some magic infused video that is supposed to convert me on the spot?

so are you deceiving yourself, just like the atheist proclaimed in the video? your replies are the exact same as theirs were.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, as I have told you repeatedly. Is this supposed to be some magic infused video that is supposed to convert me on the spot?

So do you believe the book of life ( our dna) could come from nothing? any more than a full color page book could fall from heaven (out of thin air), page numbers falling out of the sky, red ink, blue ink forming itself into coherent words, and pictures? both are impossible yes? if so, then the only other option is that they did not come.from nothing, and I present the only logical explanation of what that thing is that created dna, God. It's not an appeal to silence because this is truly the only explanation that actually works. if there were other explanations than one may say this is an argument from silence but neither you nor myself have another explaination.

 

[Skreeper]

so are you deceiving yourself, just like the atheist proclaimed in the video? your replies are the exact same as theirs were.

What does that even mean? Deceiving myself how? By not accepting bogus claims by Banana Man?

 

[Skreeper]

So do you believe the book of life ( our dna) could come from nothing?

No I do not believe that. I currently do not know how DNA or life arose like everyone else.

both are impossible yes?

I cannot say that both are impossible. Maybe highly improbable but that does not mean it cannot happen.

If you want to know what we currently know about life from non-life you should look up abiogenesis.

 

[Job 33:6]

@gradyll you have ignored my question twice now. Why?

 

[PsychoSarah]

so are you deceiving yourself, just like the atheist proclaimed in the video?

Not into "not believing in a deity". I've repeatedly tried to delude myself into believing in and afterlife and the like, though. Thus far, I have failed. Besides, willfully lying to oneself never results in any belief change, since one is always aware of doing it.