Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't think the evidence is conclusive.
I have lived without questioning the philosophy of evolution that I need to determine what is actual evidence and what is assertion.
Why not?
I am talking about the science of evolution.
I don't think the evidence is conclusive. I have lived without questioning the philosophy of evolution that I need to determine what is actual evidence and what is assertion.
You haven't shown that those species are misclassified.
How do you reconcile your belief of God and then claim that He didn't create the life on earth?
And yet, there they are, transitional whale fossils where before we didn't have any.Interpretation of the "whale transition" has been notoriously ambiguous, fraught with erroneous conclusions, and generally dominated by subjective imagination of what the researchers want the animals to be. There's really no reason to assume the current classification interpretations are correct.
What evolutionists must do is prove that their "theory" is compatible with the origin of life, and prove that it's capable of producing the vast high-tech engineering found in life. Then, and only then, will we skeptics accept it.
A suggestion for anyone who believes a so-called "scientific consensus" proves something correct, or at least beyond questioning: Evolve a brain, get an education, and use it.
Throughout history, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong more often than right. Consensus is built on groupthink and peer pressure; not exactly the most stable of foundations.
Throughout history, "scientific consensus" has been repeatedly toppled by minorities, sometimes as small as a single person. After all, scientific advancement is the product of new data and/or new interpretations of old data, not the spoon-feeding and regurgitating of current ideas (i.e., consensus).
This is why those of us who truly understand science and its history can only roll our eyes at the simpletons who sing the praises of the "scientific consensus!" like braindead cheerleaders at a football game.
However, this observed fact is a far cry from the claim that mutations engineered all of the living world. Yet, by calling both claims "evolution," with no clear distinction between the two, evolutionists can use the undeniable proof for the former as undeniable proof for the later.
The general public, being mostly naive idiots, eat it up like a fat kid with a banana split.
What an interesting claim! Care to back that up with either some serious credentials, or some peer-reviewed science papers, or anything of substance? Because as far as I can tell, that's completely wrong. The whale lineage belongs near the Homo lineage as a lineage we understand phenomenally well. It was hypothesized even before the fossils were known about that whales were mammals, and most likely descended from terrestrial mammals - as early as the 1690s. This was confirmed first with a fossil lineage, then with genetic analysis, and numerous other fields of independent research. This is not "ambiguous". This is not "dominated by subjective imagination". At least, none of the biologists working on the subject seem to think so.Interpretation of the "whale transition" has been notoriously ambiguous, fraught with erroneous conclusions, and generally dominated by subjective imagination of what the researchers want the animals to be. There's really no reason to assume the current classification interpretations are correct.
Regardless, ID may not be discernible but ID is necessary if one agrees with Scripture and God being responsible for the creation of the universe and all life in it. Your claim:It is a matter of indifference to me whether the life on earth started naturally (due to a universe that could "grow" life) or started as a miracle (due to God creating a miraculous living cell at the time life started). Either way, I give God full credit for life. But I suspect He used the natural method.
Put me down as one of the simpletons -- you must be much better educated than I am. But I'll still venture to disagree with you on a point or two.A suggestion for anyone who believes a so-called "scientific consensus" proves something correct, or at least beyond questioning: Evolve a brain, get an education, and use it.
Throughout history, the "scientific consensus" has been wrong more often than right. Consensus is built on groupthink and peer pressure; not exactly the most stable of foundations.
Throughout history, "scientific consensus" has been repeatedly toppled by minorities, sometimes as small as a single person. After all, scientific advancement is the product of new data and/or new interpretations of old data, not the spoon-feeding and regurgitating of current ideas (i.e., consensus).
This is why those of us who truly understand science and its history can only roll our eyes at the simpletons who sing the praises of the "scientific consensus!" like braindead cheerleaders at a football game.
I'm pretty sure I've never done that. In fact, I wrote a post just a day or two ago explicitly distinguishing between the two. Of course, in the post I also pointed out that both of those aspects of evolution -- change within a species and common descent -- were so well supported by the evidence that they could be treated as facts. But I'm just a scientist, so what do I know?As for evolution, and how accurately it describes reality: It depends entirely on how one defines evolution.
One of the go-to rhetorical tricks of evolutionists is to give the term evolution several meanings, which allows them to throw out baits-and-switches like they're going out of style.
For example, that you look different from your parents can be called a form of evolution. This evolution is a directly-observed fact; it's true.
However, this observed fact is a far cry from the claim that mutations engineered all of the living world. Yet, by calling both claims "evolution," with no clear distinction between the two, evolutionists can use the undeniable proof for the former as undeniable proof for the later.
We don't really have to prove that evolution is compatible with the origin of life (whatever exactly you mean by that), since it doesn't much matter to us where life came from: we just worry about how it's changed while it's been here. As for convincing the skeptics, well, I've seen a lot of skeptics of evolution, and they generally show very little interest in actual scientific data or reasoning. So call me skeptical that you're willing to be convincedThe general public, being mostly naive idiots, eat it up like a fat kid with a banana split.
What evolutionists must do is prove that their "theory" is compatible with the origin of life, and prove that it's capable of producing the vast high-tech engineering found in life. Then, and only then, will we skeptics accept it.
Why are you still trying to debate a point I never raised?Besides the point. Flippers evolved first, so even under evolutionary theory there is no reason to assume that the flipper is a vestigial of the leg.
Yes, I've read the paper that described that hybrid; that's why I said hybridization was rare -- that's the only known case. The species (and sometimes genus) assignments here were made long ago, based primarily on morphology. They've subsequently been supported by genetic studies. The genetic distance between the most diverged honeycreeper species is roughly half that between humans and chimpanzees.Delineated ecologically or biologically? This is the problem with the word "species", with multiple meanings you can never know exactly what is being claimed. I don't think biologists should have ever started classifying distinct species simply by geographical/ecological separation.
Here is at least one account of a honeycreeper hybrid between the Apapane and the I'iwi.
http://phys.org/news/2011-08-native-hawaiian-birds-survive-fragmented.html
Regardless, ID may not be discernible but ID is necessary if one agrees with Scripture and God being responsible for the creation of the universe and all life in it. Your claim:
Its easy to see evolution as the reason for this situation. Hard to see this as the work of an intelligent designer.
Seems to convey the concept that God was not involved and evolution is the creative impetus rather than God. I was interested in your position on that.
Keeping the function seen in the ancestral group and other evolutionary branches is not vestigial.
Evolving new function is not an example of a vestigial structure.
You haven't shown that those species are misclassified.
Yes, I've read the paper that described that hybrid; that's why I said hybridization was rare -- that's the only known case. The species (and sometimes genus) assignments here were made long ago, based primarily on morphology. They've subsequently been supported by genetic studies. The genetic distance between the most diverged honeycreeper species is roughly half that between humans and chimpanzees.
Sorry, you still haven't got that right. You can't make up things as you go along every time you want to tell us what something is or isn't.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vestigial_structure
(biology) A structure in an organism that has lost all or most of its original function in the course of evolution, such as human appendixes.
The whale never evolved a new structure since flippers evolved long before legs did. It at most regressed in evolution theory. A throwback - even if it survives to this day
No, all evolutionist's have always done is show they are unwilling to correct their mistakes and want to continue on as if nothing has happened. When evolutionists decide they want to be scientific again, let me know.
What an interesting claim! Care to back that up with either some serious credentials, or some peer-reviewed science papers, or anything of substance?
It was hypothesized even before the fossils were known about that whales were mammals, and most likely descended from terrestrial mammals - as early as the 1690s.
It is common knowledge that evolutionary paleontologists have shown a tendency to insert imaginary traits not found in evidence in order to help sell their transitional model. The traits they do have usually amount to ambiguous interpretation at best.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?