Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Loudmouth]

Both statements are true.

They can't both be true.

Many fossils that show 'evolution' are simply the young of the species, and, Australopithecus and modern man are different creations.

Therefore, australopithecines show evolution, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

I accept the arguments of posters here.

Who made that argument? Reference, please.

The complexity that science discovers supports special creation.

How?

 

[Loudmouth]

Peer review?

Huh?

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh?

Don't you scientists disagree with each other too?

That means someone disagrees with you too.

So what point were you trying to make by saying there are those who disagree with my interpretation of Scripture?

Isn't disagreement what makes the world go round?

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't you scientists disagree with each other too?

Christians are allowed to disagree with you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Christians are allowed to disagree with you?

Absolutely.

Are you making some kind of point?

 

[Kylie]

I'm being sarcastic.

I thought you were being literal.

Or do you only take the Bible literally if it doesn't inconvenience you?

 

[rjs330]

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.


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

Oh good grief that's like saying we came from the same ancestor because we are all animals. Its still,an assumption.

 

[rjs330]

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.

And who defined primates? We did based upon criteria also defined by us based upon similarities. It means nothing more than human beings setting definitions for God's creation and coming to an assumptive theory that all things came from one thing.

 

[rjs330]

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

So? It still doesn't prove we all came from one single thing.

 

[rjs330]

Nothing about the nested hierarchy of life is assumed.
Those are observable facts. And it's easily testable as well.

Our classification system litterally is just pasting labels on all those groups. It doesn't matter what we call them. They are there. We just name them so we can talk about them, refer to them,... You know how language works, yes?



No. What defines us as primates are our physical attributes. The facts about our biology. Yes, we categorize life. We use groups wich are actually just nodes on the branching tree of life. Off course, we have to figure out what the groups are, first.

The fact that we can actually do this, is quite ironically, because life happens to fall into a nested hierarchy. Did it ever occur to you to wonder why the classification of life is in kind of an ever-specialising structure?
Eukaryote - Animal - Tetrapod - Mammal - Primate - Homo
And I'm probably skipping a lot of them as well.




It's not. It's a conclusion from data.



Ow goody... an emotional argument.



Such events of the past have observable impact on the data in the present.
The "were-you-there" answer or variants thereof is absurd.



That is a straight up lie.

Then show me the study that shows us something evolving into something it isn't already.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh good grief that's like saying we came from the same ancestor because we are all animals. Its still,an assumption.

No, the observed existence of nested hierarchies is a prediction that the theory of evolution makes. Creationism makes no predictions.

 

[Speedwell]

Then show me the study that shows us something evolving into something it isn't already.

You are going to have to be more precise in your terminology if you expect a serious answer.

 

[rjs330]

No, the observed existence of nested hierarchies is a prediction that the theory of evolution makes. Creationism makes no predictions.

You are,correct creation makes no,predictions. God's word,declairs how and when God made everything and how long it took.
And the complexity of all there is speaks to that fact.

 

[Speedwell]

And who defined primates? We did based upon criteria also defined by us based upon similarities. It means nothing more than human beings setting definitions for God's creation...

According to Genesis, God gave to Adam, and by extension to us, the task of creating biological taxonomies. Gen 2:20.
On the other hand, there is no scriptural evidence whatever that "kinds" were intended to represent some sort of an immutable divine taxonomy. Indeed, the use of the term nicely conveys the Darwinian principle of Reproductive Similarity.

 

[Speedwell]

You are,correct creation makes no,predictions. God's word,declares how and when God made everything and how long it took.

Which is one good reason why Creationism is not a scientific theory. An important requirement which a theory must meet is that it successfully predicts further observations.

And the complexity of all there is...

Is another thing the theory of evolution predicts.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Don't you scientists disagree with each other too?

That means someone disagrees with you too.

So what point were you trying to make by saying there are those who disagree with my interpretation of Scripture?

Isn't disagreement what makes the world go round?

It's worse than that. As soon as a serious problem develops someone makes an industry out of it. We can't solve our 'problems' because the economy would collapse.

That's why I can't stop drinking. I had a terrible dream the other night. The headline read,

"OldWiseGuy goes on the wagon. Dozens of taverns close, hundreds unemployed."

 

[AV1611VET]

It's worse than that. As soon as a serious problem develops someone makes an industry out of it. We can't solve our 'problems' because the economy would collapse.

Ain't that that truth!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Aren't having mutations in my DNA and those mutation appearing two different things? Not everyone who has the shingles virus has an outbreak of shingles. Not every inherited genetic weakness is expressed either. And, as was opined by another, don't these 'mutations' give us our individuality?

You didn't actually answer my question.

But what you did do, at least, is contradict your very own statement that read "it's the mutants that don't survive".

That's a start, I guess.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution claims responsibility for everything, including thoughts. Explain why I don't think evolution is true.

How are those words related to what you are quoting?