Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

rjs330 · Oct 31, 2016

David_M said:
No its not the ultimate claim of evolution, because you are misrepresenting that claim.

What common descent claims is that yes, everything does remain in the same human defined classifications.

The descendants of chordates are all chordates, the descendants of mammals are all mammals.

Then we cannot all have a common ancestor then.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Oct 31, 2016

rjs330 said:
Because you can't prove an assumption. That's why it's an assumption. You can't prove any of evolutions claim therefore by defenition it is an assumption.

No. HERE'S how it works. YOU keep making the claim that evolution is an assumption, so the onus is on YOU to present evidence for YOUR claim.
YOU have presented NOTHING to support your claim.

Loudmouth · Oct 31, 2016

rjs330 said:
It's assumptive evidence because we have no ability to go back piece by piece to observe it taking place and,no way to test it now.

We do have a way of testing for it now. It's called phylogenetics. That test is the twin nested hierarchy.

"It will be determined to what extent the phylogenetic tree, as derived from molecular data in complete independence from the results of organismal biology, coincides with the phylogenetic tree constructed on the basis of organismal biology. If the two phylogenetic trees are mostly in agreement with respect to the topology of branching, the best available single proof of the reality of macro-evolution would be furnished. Indeed, only the theory of evolution, combined with the realization that events at any supramolecular level are consistent with molecular events, could reasonably account for such a congruence between lines of evidence obtained independently, namely amino acid sequences of homologous polypeptide chains on the one hand, and the finds of organismal taxonomy and paleontology on the other hand. Besides offering an intellectual satisfaction to some, the advertising of such evidence would of course amount to beating a dead horse. Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life."

Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling, discussing the possibility of the twin nested hierarchy before the first molecular phylogenies had been made.
(1965) "Evolutionary Divergence and Convergence in Proteins." in Evolving Genes and Proteins, p. 101.

That's the test.

A wasp is and always was a wasp. It never was anything and never will,be but a wasp. It did not evolve from any one creature rhat I supposedly also evolved from.

Then how do you explain the fact that you and the wasp are both bilaterians? You are still the same type of animal.

Speedwell · Oct 31, 2016

Because God decided to make us both that way 6000 years ago, otherwise what I believe about the Bible would false and since what I believe about the Bible is the only possible correct belief about the Bible therefore the Bible would be false and there could be no God nor any salvation in Christ.

QED.

Moral Orel · Oct 31, 2016

rjs330 said:
Here lies a major problem of evolution. Its called defenitions which are used to show an assumption. We are defined as primates because we are,defined as,primates. Therefore the assumption is that we have a common ancestor as the monkey because They are primates too. Its a self fulfilling prophecy. Its an assumptive prophecy. I don't care what science defenition is placed on me I am not a monkey and never have been related to,one by ancestry.

We aren't "defined as primates because we are defined as primates". We are defined as primates because we fit the characteristics of what a primate is described as. Here's the definition of primate:

any of an order (Primates) of mammals that are characterized especially by advanced development of binocular vision, specialization of the appendages for grasping, and enlargement of the cerebral hemispheres and that include humans, apes, monkeys, and related forms (as lemurs and tarsiers)

No one ever said you were a monkey, and no one ever said you are an ancestor of a monkey. You are a primate because you fit this definition. Monkeys didn't exist a long, long time ago, so no one can accuse you of being descended from one. The fact that you think someone has accused you of being descended from monkeys is telling when it comes to your claimed knowledge about the ToE.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Oct 31, 2016

rjs330 said:
Sorry I can't read that and don't feel like subscribing to do so. Since I can't read it does it say that the wasp is changing into something else besides a wasp? Is it turning into a bird?

Here's a link that describes the same thing, and has a link to the original study.

Mobezom · Oct 31, 2016

The wasp will still be a wasp. But it will be incapable of breeding with the other wasps. That defines a species.

Kylie · Oct 31, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Yes.

Do you have a Christmas tree?

Kylie · Oct 31, 2016

rjs330 said:
Sorry I can't read that and don't feel like subscribing to do so. Since I can't read it does it say that the wasp is changing into something else besides a wasp? Is it turning into a bird?

Your inability to read it does not invalidate it. In any case, it is very easy to do a google search. Here are some links I found.

http://news.nd.edu/news/62448-scientists-detect-wasps-evolving-into-new-species/
http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/scientists-watch-wasps-diverge-become-separate-species/
http://www.earthtimes.org/conservation/speciation-gall-wasps/1826/
http://www.zmescience.com/medicine/genetic/evolution-wasp-species-02112015/

And if you think that we need to see a wasp turning into a bird in order to prove evolution, then you have no idea what evolution is. Such a thing would DISPROVE evolution.

AV1611VET · Oct 31, 2016

KTS said:
Do you have a Christmas tree?

Yes.

Speedwell · Oct 31, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Yes.

Already? It's only Hallowe'en.

AV1611VET · Oct 31, 2016

Speedwell said:
Already? It's only Hallowe'en.

It's an artificial one.

Kylie · Oct 31, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Yes.

Maybe you better read Jeremiah 10:2-5 again.

10:2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
10:3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman,with the axe.
10:4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.
10:5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.

AV1611VET · Oct 31, 2016

KTS said:
Maybe you better read Jeremiah 10:2-5 again.

Imagine that!?

And here I've been using the Christmas tree as physical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ!

Mobezom · Oct 31, 2016

The Bible says not to have Christmas trees. For a Christian, you have are shockingly incompetent at reading a few verses.

"Learn not the way of the heathen," "For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman,with the axe."

Kylie · Nov 1, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Imagine that!?

And here I've been using the Christmas tree as physical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ!

Can't tell if sarcasm or not.

Moral Orel · Nov 1, 2016

KTS said:
No, you do not understand evolution "very well" if your source of knowledge about it is a few threads on an internet discussion board.

Don't sell yourselves short. I've learned a ton from these very boards. I have the creationists to thank almost as much as the rest of you since they asked all the questions about the misconceptions that I came here having that I never would have asked for fear of looking stupid.

They didn't teach anything about evolution in any of my public schools, so the only "knowledge" I had about it was what I had heard during my religious upbringing. So I came into this with the same misconceptions as the creationists here, but then I learned what an argument from ignorance is, and what an argument from incredulity is, and what special pleading is. I think it was @Loudmouth who started a thread about ERVs that clinched it for me.

I still don't know much compared to the rest of the folks around here, but it's fascinating finding out just how much science has explained. So remember this if you ever start feeling like your efforts to explain evolution to the die hard deniers is in vain. There are lurkers who learn a lot.

AV1611VET · Nov 1, 2016

Mobezom said:
The Bible says not to have Christmas trees.

Is this the same Bible, perchance, that says the sun goes around the earth?

AV1611VET · Nov 1, 2016

KTS said:
Can't tell if sarcasm or not.

I'm being sarcastic.

Mobezom · Nov 1, 2016

AV1611VET said:
Is this the same Bible, perchance, that says the sun goes around the earth?

No, because the Bible doesn't say that.

Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Defeater of Illogic

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Defeater of Illogic

Proud Citizen of Moralton

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency