Don't like the implications?

[juvenissun]

Why don't you do your own research on this topic, and find out?

I can't. I don't have time.
And, I don't have to. I am sure the study of this question must have been done.

 

[juvenissun]

I agree with Gene2meme, go and do some research if you are genuinely interested (which I doubt). I just did a quick google search and there are many, many papers on the subject.

I am curious as to why you are not convinced by the explainations you are being offered, do you believe that there is a more plausible alternative?

I have explained why.
Yes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't. I don't have time.
And, I don't have to. I am sure the study of this question must have been done.

I don't think Gene2meme meant that you had to do actual biological research yourself.
Rather, gene2meme probably means what I would call "layman research". Meaning: informing yourself on the studies that have been done on this subject by actual biologists.

He's not asking you to write a paper.
He's asking you to read the existing papers.
Or if those are too technical, to read the "simplified" explanations of those papers that you might find in high school textbooks and alike.

 

[juvenissun]

I note that you haven't bothered to respond to my post (post 186: http://www.christianforums.com/threads/dont-like-the-implications.7973420/page-10#post-70384244), where I answered your questions concerning races of humans and why a single race doesn't evolve multiple times and/or in multiple locations independently.

Did you miss it?
Did you not read it?

Or are you just ignoring it?

If I live in France, and you live in east China, why should my evolution path be different from your evolution path?

 

[juvenissun]

I don't think Gene2meme meant that you had to do actual biological research yourself.
Rather, gene2meme probably means what I would call "layman research". Meaning: informing yourself on the studies that have been done on this subject by actual biologists.

He's not asking you to write a paper.
He's asking you to read the existing papers.
Or if those are too technical, to read the "simplified" explanations of those papers that you might find in high school textbooks and alike.

Layman's explanations are not good enough.

The point is, I asked a question about evolution, and you can not answer it. THEN, you should not say with confidence that evolution is true. At the best, you can only say: evolution is probably true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Layman's explanations are not good enough.

Okay. In that case, you're going to have to enroll at some college or university to gain the expertise required to actually understand the technical papers.

There are no free rides here.
You either are okay with the layman explanations, or you're going to have to gain the expertise to understand the technical explanations.

It's one or the other.

The point is, I asked a question about evolution, and you can not answer it.

I did answer it. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

THEN, you should not say with confidence that evolution is true.

I actually understand the theory. I can say it is accurate with the exact same confidence as saying that germs cause deseases.

At the best, you can only say: evolution is probably true.

No. Evolutionary biology is way past the "probably true" stage. It's as close to "certainly true" as it can get in science, keeping in mind that "absolute certainty" is "forbidden terrain".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I live in France, and you live in east China, why should my evolution path be different from your evolution path?

Because we don't belong to the same population (and thus are genetically isolated from eachother, meaning that the mutations in my population, stay in my population and the mutations in your population, stay in your population).

This is like lesson 1 in evolutionary biology at high school level. Even sooner, perhaps.
This is the basics of the basics of the basics.

How can you consider yourself qualified to argue about evolution (con OR pro) if you don't even understand these extremely basic concepts????

 

[Jimmy D]

The point is, I asked a question about evolution, and you can not answer it. THEN, you should not say with confidence that evolution is true. At the best, you can only say: evolution is probably true.

Two things:

1. Your question has been answered. Your refusal to accept the answers doesn't change that.

2. Hypothetically, just because someone can't answer question on one specific area of a huge subject doesn't mean that they don't understand said subject or any other evidences demonstrating the facts of subject.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I take it as a convenient excuse.

If you think the concept that multi-generational processes take time is a 'convenient excuse', it really says more about your understanding than anything else.

We can not observe it, can not prove it. All we have is a model. That IS what the evolution is.

That's true; there are no proofs in natural science, and theories are models that explain our observations and have been repeatedly tested and confirmed. You can believe what you like, but it won't change the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution. I don't envy you the cognitive dissonance in trying to reconcile the two, but denying the evidence is intellectual bankruptcy.

 

[juvenissun]

That's true; there are no proofs in natural science, and theories are models that explain our observations and have been repeatedly tested and confirmed. You can believe what you like, but it won't change the overwhelming evidence in favour of evolution. I don't envy you the cognitive dissonance in trying to reconcile the two, but denying the evidence is intellectual bankruptcy.

The problem is that what you said has NOT been done. People may studied 100 species of insect. It is not the same as to study one insect 100 times.

Where is the repeated test and confirmation on the skin color variation among races? What is the conclusion beyond "we are not sure"? And if we can not be sure on this "modern" issue of evolution, how confident could we be when we study ancient lives that are no longer available? Any simple fact explained by evolution theory would hit the wall of unknown after a few levels of questions. This theory is as open as a fine mesh sieve.

 

[juvenissun]

Two things:

1. Your question has been answered.

No it has not.
Give a rubbish comment is far far away from giving an answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The problem is that what you said has NOT been done. People may studied 100 species of insect. It is not the same as to study one insect 100 times.

Where is the repeated test and confirmation on the skin color variation among races? What is the conclusion beyond "we are not sure"? And if we can not be sure on this "modern" issue of evolution, how confident could we be when we study ancient lives that are no longer available? Any simple fact explained by evolution theory would hit the wall of unknown after a few levels of questions. This theory is as open as a fine mesh sieve.

Ignoring for a moment the falsehoods about our level of knowledge concerning evolutionary biology that you are asserting here....

It seems that you are saying that "because we don't know EVERYTHING or because can't answer EVERY question, that somehow means that we don't have to take anything seriously concerning the subjects at hand".

Is that really what you are saying?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it has not.
Give a rubbish comment is far far away from giving an answer.

What was rubbish about my answer concerning genetically isolated populations and those isolated populations being on their own evolutionary path?

What was rubbish about my clarification in post 227, where I answered yet another one of your questions as a follow-up?

What part of genetically isolated populations is tripping you up?
What specifically don't you agree with?

Try adding some actual substance to your post this time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No it has not.
Give a rubbish comment is far far away from giving an answer.

And since we are on the subject... let's turn it around for a second and ask YOU a question for change...

Why is it, in your opinion, that we can immediatly recognise from what part of the world someone has ancestry, by simply seeing a picture of their face?

For example:
This guy has roots in Africa:

This girl has roots in Europe:

This guy has roots in Asia:

How come that we know this instantly?


And it goes even further..... We can also do this when we have nothing but a DNA sample.

See here: https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/
You can do this test yourself, if you have 100$ extra around.
They don't need pictures, they don't need biographies. They don't need anything but a DNA sample.

They look for genetic markers and those markers are give-aways about their ancestry. How is it possible that they can do this, if not by evolutionary principles???

 

[juvenissun]

Ignoring for a moment the falsehoods about our level of knowledge concerning evolutionary biology that you are asserting here....

It seems that you are saying that "because we don't know EVERYTHING or because can't answer EVERY question, that somehow means that we don't have to take anything seriously concerning the subjects at hand".

Is that really what you are saying?

Yes. Since you only "hear about" evolution, you should not say positively that evolution is true.

 

[juvenissun]

What was rubbish about my answer concerning genetically isolated populations and those isolated populations being on their own evolutionary path?

I replied to that one.

 

[juvenissun]

They look for genetic markers and those markers are give-aways about their ancestry. How is it possible that they can do this, if not by evolutionary principles???

They can tell the difference by all kinds of criteria. But that does not mean they know why are there such differences. I can tell the race by looking at the face. But I do not know why. How would evolution explain this?

And, that was the question many many posts before this one. Why do you still pause on the same question?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem is that what you said has NOT been done.

That you may be unaware of the many ways the ToE has been tested and confirmed doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Where is the repeated test and confirmation on the skin color variation among races?

In what respect? We know that particular skin colours are specific to particular populations and the degree of pigmentation correlates with their exposure to UV radiation according to their geographic locations, and we also see that the associated genetic variations are consistent with these features evolving in relatively reproductively isolated populations, and that the timescales suggested by the genetic differences between populations are consistent with the estimates for their geographical separation.

This is all fits the expectations of evolution. What other possible tests would you like to see?

What is the conclusion beyond "we are not sure"?

The conclusion regarding skin colour differences between populations is that we are sure beyond reasonable doubt that it is due to the evolution of relatively isolated populations in geographic areas with correspondingly different UV exposure levels.

if we can not be sure on this "modern" issue of evolution, how confident could we be when we study ancient lives that are no longer available? Any simple fact explained by evolution theory would hit the wall of unknown after a few levels of questions.

We can use the scientific method to infer the correctness of the model. We observe the mechanisms and processes of contemporary evolution in the lab and in the wild, and predict what we would expect to see if these processes and mechanisms were similar in the past. Then we observe the available evidence to see whether the real world corresponds to what we would expect if the theory was correct - and we find that it does, and not just in a generic sense; it has been used to make specific predictions which have been borne out by exploration and experiment.

There are multiple independent lines of evidence that are all unequivocally consistent with ToE predictions and expectations, e.g. fossils & their stratigraphy, genetic markers, anatomical & biochemical similarities, geographic distribution, etc., etc.

Clearly, the further back in time we try to look, the sparser the available evidence, but what we've found remains consistent with the ToE as far back as we have fossils. It is also consistent with the evidence of geological and climatic changes over time (plate tectonics, volcanism, atmospheric composition, climate, etc.)

If a model explains our observations, makes novel predictions that are found to be correct, is testable and falsifiable in many ways, but has passed all tests and not been falsified in over 150 years of exploration and experiment, has multiple independent lines of supporting evidence, explains a wide range of diverse phenomena, is parsimonious in conception, and coheres strongly with existing scientific knowledge, and there are no competing scientific hypotheses, it's called a 'correct model' - with the implicit qualifier that all scientific models are provisional, open to revision or falsification. In practice, models or theories that have been as successful as the ToE, are generally accepted as factually correct beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

They can tell the difference by all kinds of criteria. But that does not mean they know why are there such differences. I can tell the race by looking at the face. But I do not know why. How would evolution explain this?

Evolution explains it because the various human populations lived in different environments to each other, thus resulting in them adapting to be better suited to their environment. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes. Since you only "hear about" evolution, you should not say positively that evolution is true.

Science never says "positively" about it's theories.

I will repeat part of Frumious' post, in which he made two important points:

"If a model explains our observations, makes novel predictions that are found to be correct, is testable and falsifiable in many ways, but has passed all tests and not been falsified in over 150 years of exploration and experiment, has multiple independent lines of supporting evidence, explains a wide range of diverse phenomena, is parsimonious in conception, and coheres strongly with existing scientific knowledge, and there are no competing scientific hypotheses, it's called a 'correct model' - with the implicit qualifier that all scientific models are provisional, open to revision or falsification. In practice, models or theories that have been as successful as the ToE, are generally accepted as factually correct beyond reasonable doubt."

With respect to the Theory of Evolution,

1. Like all scientific models it is provisional, open to revision or falsification.

2. There are no competing scientific hypotheses.

If you don't like the answers we are giving you, that's fine, but there are no other answers.