Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can prove a billion exists because I can count that high. It might take a long time but I can do it. This is not about what I can do it is about proving something that happened in the past at a point where no one has ever been able to show actually happened. And we can't show it happens now. We assume so because no,matter how hard we try and no matter how we are different from,our parents we are still humans and monkey children are still monkeys and fish children are still,fish and lizard kids are still,lizards. They are not evolving into anything else.

Events of the past leave evidence that can be observed in the present.

The idea that "someone had to be there to observe it, in order to know that it happened", is absurd to the highest degree.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

In evolution, speciation is always a vertical process, never a horizontal one.

So decendents of X always will be either the same species or sub-species of X.

Cats don't turn into dogs.
Wasps don't turn into birds.
Chimpansees don't turn into humans.

Life is a branching tree.

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was a primate. Humans and chimps are still primates and will remain primates.

The common ancestor humans and cats and dogs was a mammal. Humans, cats and dogs are still mammals and will remain mammals.

If any speciation happens in the descendents of humans, these subspecies will still be primate's and Homo's.

Human or chimp descendents will not become non-primates.

So, whatever "objection" you are expressing in that quote above, is a strawman.


If you are really hellbend on arguing against some scientific idea, it's a wise idea to first lean what that idea is really all about.

Although I'ld have to question the actual reasons and motivations of someone who is "hellbend" on arguing against a scientific idea...if that person doesn't even know the first thing about this scientific idea....

 

[Moral Orel]

I can prove a billion exists because I can count that high. It might take a long time but I can do it. This is not about what I can do it is about proving something that happened in the past at a point where no one has ever been able to show actually happened. And we can't show it happens now.

You just assume you could count to a billion because you don't really know just how big that number is. If you counted four numbers per second non stop, no sleep, no food, no drink, it would take almost eight years to count that high. Still not big enough? Do a trillion and then it truly is impossible for you to observe every single number in your lifetime.

What it's about is understanding that something is real without being able to directly observe it.

 

[Speedwell]

Because Creationists believe a literal Genesis is essential to the faith in Christ which will save them from eternal torment in Hell.

And if the theory of evolution is true, a literal Genesis is false.

So they must convince themselves that the theory of evolution is false.

A straw man version of the theory will do for that, so that is what they have been given--by their pastors and teachers, by creationist propaganda mills like AiG, CRI, ICR, etc: A bogus version of the theory of evolution which is easy to refute, easy to think of as a transparent falsehood created by wicked men who desire to deny the Bible.

But it just won't do when arguing with non- creationists who know what the real theory says.

 

[Loudmouth]

We look very hard at it. We are just not buying it. If makes no sense to us and since you can't prove It there's no reason for us to buy it.

Why aren't you buying the twin nested hierarchy? Why isn't it evidence for evolution?

Just like I can't prove God or creation, you can't prove evolution.

I can and have proven evolution beyond any reasonable doubt using scientific facts. It isn't my fault that ID/creationists refuse to even look at those facts.

What you see as evidence for evolution we creationist see as evidence of creation.

How is the twin nested hierarchy evidence of creation? I keep asking this question and no creationist can answer it.

We also utterly reject some of the so called evidence,as nothing more than wishful thinking and assumptive belief based upon a preconceived notion.

Then please show how animals does not fall into a twin nested hierarchy.

 

[Loudmouth]

Being in denial requires that that which is being denied is actually true.

How is the twin nested hierarchy not true?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I do very well. I am educated by just about every evolution thread About what evolution is and is not, from ERVs to nested hierarchies. Its all nothing but a bunch of assumptions with no actual proof that evolution as stated happened.

How are ERVs and the twin nested hierarchy assumptions? We can directly observe ERVs in the genomes of different species. We can directly observe retroviruses producing new ERVs. We can directly sequence DNA. What is assumed?

Until it can be shown by observation or testing that a single original creature could evolve into all there is then it's all,assumption.

That observation and test is the twin nested hierarchy, the very thing you refuse to address.

 

[Freodin]

In evolution, speciation is always a vertical process, never a horizontal one.

So decendents of X always will be either the same species or sub-species of X.

Cats don't turn into dogs.
Wasps don't turn into birds.
Chimpansees don't turn into humans.

Life is a branching tree.

This needs repeating. With a sledgehammer, a loadspeaker, a plane writing it onto the sky!

How someone can claim to understand evolution and still repeat this tired old beaten horse of "... but it is still a dog/cat/horse" is absolutely beyond me.

If you have to ask if evolution is about wasps are turning into birds, you have no right to claim to understand evoltion. Go stand in the corner and shame on you!

 

[rjs330]

How are ERVs and the twin nested hierarchy assumptions? We can directly observe ERVs in the genomes of different species. We can directly observe retroviruses producing new ERVs. We can directly sequence DNA. What is assumed?



That observation and test is the twin nested hierarchy, the very thing you refuse to address.

The assumption is that it is evidence for evolution that we all came from one thing (whatever that was) in the far flung past.

 

[Loudmouth]

The assumption is that it is evidence for evolution that we all came from one thing (whatever that was) in the far flung past.

Then please explain why it isn't evidence for evolution. What would the pattern of DNA and morphology be if evolution really did happen, and how would it differ from what we see now?

 

[rjs330]

This needs repeating. With a sledgehammer, a loadspeaker, a plane writing it onto the sky!

How someone can claim to understand evolution and still repeat this tired old beaten horse of "... but it is still a dog/cat/horse" is absolutely beyond me.

If you have to ask if evolution is about wasps are turning into birds, you have no right to claim to understand evoltion. Go stand in the corner and shame on you!

No shame in you because that is the ultimate,claim of evolution. This deserves repeating with a bigger sledgehammer. The claim is we all (wasps monkeys and people) all came from one single creature, whatever that was, in the eons past and that single creature through millions of years became everything there is. Its all bunk with no ability to,prove it. Its all assumption.

 

[David_M]

Then please show how animals does not fall into a twin nested hierarchy.

The Crocoduck?

 

[Loudmouth]

No shame in you because that is the ultimate,claim of evolution. This deserves repeating with a bigger sledgehammer. The claim is we all (wasps monkeys and people) all came from one single creature, whatever that was, in the ribs past and that single creature through millions of years became everything there is. Its all bunk with no ability to,prove it. Its all assumption.

The twin nested hierarchy does prove it. Refusing to address this evidence does not disprove the argument.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Crocoduck?

If there were a Crocoduck, it would falsify the twin nested hierarchy.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No shame in you because that is the ultimate,claim of evolution. This deserves repeating with a bigger sledgehammer. The claim is we all (wasps monkeys and people) all came from one single creature, whatever that was, in the ribs past and that single creature through millions of years became everything there is. Its all bunk with no ability to,prove it. Its all assumption.

And you have absolutely given not a single piece of evidence to show that all of what was said above is an assumption. You merely keep saying it.

 

[David_M]

No shame in you because that is the ultimate,claim of evolution. This deserves repeating with a bigger sledgehammer. The claim is we all (wasps monkeys and people) all came from one single creature, whatever that was, in the ribs past and that single creature through millions of years became everything there is. Its all bunk with no ability to,prove it. Its all assumption.

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.

 

[rjs330]

In evolution, speciation is always a vertical process, never a horizontal one.

So decendents of X always will be either the same species or sub-species of X.

Cats don't turn into dogs.
Wasps don't turn into birds.
Chimpansees don't turn into humans.

Life is a branching tree.

The common ancestor of humans and chimps was a primate. Humans and chimps are still primates and will remain primates.

The common ancestor humans and cats and dogs was a mammal. Humans, cats and dogs are still mammals and will remain mammals.

If any speciation happens in the descendents of humans, these subspecies will still be primate's and Homo's.

Human or chimp descendents will not become non-primates.

So, whatever "objection" you are expressing in that quote above, is a strawman.


If you are really hellbend on arguing against some scientific idea, it's a wise idea to first lean what that idea is really all about.

Although I'ld have to question the actual reasons and motivations of someone who is "hellbend" on arguing against a scientific idea...if that person doesn't even know the first thing about this scientific idea....

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. This cannot be proven. We see no monkeys evolving into people today. Why? Because we've already branched off of the monkey tree. In great, when did that happen? Did anyone observe it? No it is assumed it happened because we believe in a theory for which something has never been observed or tested.

 

[rjs330]

The twin nested hierarchy does prove it. Refusing to address this evidence does not disprove the argument.

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. 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.

 

[rjs330]

And you have absolutely given not a single piece of evidence to show that all of what was said above is an assumption. You merely keep saying it.

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.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

The location of ERVs in the human genome is not a matter of definition. It is a matter of fact. The features and random insertion of observed retroviruses in the lab is not a matter of definition. It is a matter of fact. These are not assumptions.

We can also directly observe populations producing a nested hierarchy through evolutionary mechanisms. This is not a matter of definition. This is a matter of fact.

Therefore the assumption is that we have a common ancestor as the monkey because They are primates too.

Is it an assumption when a jury concludes a defendant is guilty after the defendant's DNA, fingerprints, shoe prints, tire prints, and fibers are found on and around a murder victim?

Did anyone observe it? No it is assumed it happened because we believe in a theory for which something has never been observed or tested.

Is the jury assuming the defendant is guilty, even with all of that forensic evidence? Are we incapable of determining guilt if the jury is not able to witness the crime firsthand?