• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Evolution conflict and division

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
801
348
37
Pacific NW
✟31,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Are you now asserting that shared DNA's is no longer sufficient evidence for a common ancestor?
By itself with no other context (as Tour presented it), no.

If so, is your claim that because Dr. Tour is only partially correct in his claim, that he is, therefore, incredible?
He is either ignorant of, or deliberately omitting the key context that I've posted about, both of which erode his credibility on the subject. Since he's a chemist and not a biologist, evolutionary biologist, or geneticist that's not exactly a surprise.

Therefore, you abandon the common ancestor claim that humans evolved from any other kind of living creature that lacks specific genetic sequences in common?
The "specific genetic sequences in common" have been one of my main points since the start. To repeat for the third time, it's not that they're merely similar, it's that they're similar in very specific ways (for example share genetic errors).

Or at least admit the evidence for that claim is on the lowest confidence level possible for scientific claims, ie., consensus among biased "experts"?
That's a complete non sequitur.
 
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,317
597
Private
✟131,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
By itself with no other context (as Tour presented it), no.
?
Right, that's a statement of fact. But as I explained before the key context that supports human/chimp common ancestry (specific to similarity percentage) is how the amount of similarity stacks up relative to our similarity to other organisms.
Can you square your apparent contradiction?
The "specific genetic sequences in common" have been one of my main points since the start.
I understand. So, therefore organisms that do not share "specific genetic sequences in common" is evidence that they do not share a common ancestor.
That's a complete non sequitur.
No, it's not. Are you aware of the criteria for determining the level of confidence in evidence that support scientific claims?
  1. Repeatable experiments.
  2. Directly measurable.
  3. Prospective study.
  4. Avoid bias.
  5. Avoid assumptions.
  6. Make reasonable claims.
Evolution theory, on the other hand makes claims that:
  1. Can’t be repeated
  2. Nobody witnessed the actual event.
  3. Retrospective study
  4. Clear opportunities for bias.
  5. Many assumptions are required.
  6. Overstated claims.
Overstated claims? Here's a high school biology textbook's overstated claim: “For example, organisms as dissimilar as humans and bacteria share genes inherited for a a very distant common ancestor.” (Campbell Biology, 9th Ed. P. 463.)
He is either ignorant of, or deliberately omitting the key context that I've posted about, both of which erode his credibility on the subject. Since he's a chemist and not a biologist, evolutionary biologist, or geneticist that's not exactly a surprise.
Those personal (ad hominem) attacks, ie., the poster is ignorant, or the poster is unfair -- are typical from evolution believer when presented with evidence of rationales that attack their biased claims.
 
Upvote 0

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
801
348
37
Pacific NW
✟31,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Can you square your apparent contradiction?
It's a fairly simple concept. Sequence similarity forms a nested hierarchy, where our genome is most similar to chimps, a bit less similar to gorillas, a bit less similar to monkeys, even less similar to mice, even less similar to reptiles, even less similar to trees, and so on.

Another term for a nested hierarchy is "family tree".
I understand. So, therefore organisms that do not share "specific genetic sequences in common" is evidence that they do not share a common ancestor.
If you have examples of such, post them and we can go from there.

No, it's not. Are you aware of the criteria for determining the level of confidence in evidence that support scientific claims?
  1. Repeatable experiments.
  2. Directly measurable.
  3. Prospective study.
  4. Avoid bias.
  5. Avoid assumptions.
  6. Make reasonable claims.
Evolution theory, on the other hand makes claims that:
  1. Can’t be repeated
  2. Nobody witnessed the actual event.
  3. Retrospective study
  4. Clear opportunities for bias.
  5. Many assumptions are required.
  6. Overstated claims.
As I posted to Platte earlier, I honestly don't care if you don't think evolutionary theory is valid science. It makes no difference to me or any other scientist. You're certainly welcome to your opinions.

My primary interest here is to stick up for my co-workers and colleagues. We're not stupid nor are we involved in a shadowy conspiracy.

Overstated claims? Here's a high school biology textbook's overstated claim: “For example, organisms as dissimilar as humans and bacteria share genes inherited for a a very distant common ancestor.” (Campbell Biology, 9th Ed. P. 463.)
I understand you don't believe in common ancestry. You're welcome to that opinion.

Those personal (ad hominem) attacks, ie., the poster is ignorant, or the poster is unfair -- are typical from evolution believer when presented with evidence of rationales that attack their biased claims.
You presented a video of Dr. Tour where he didn't accurately describe an aspect of evolutionary theory. The only two explanations that I can think of is either intentional omission or ignorance. Do you have another?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

o_mlly

“Behold, I make all things new.”
May 20, 2021
3,317
597
Private
✟131,409.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Sequence similarity forms a nested hierarchy, where our genome is most similar to chimps, a bit less similar to gorillas, a bit less similar to monkeys, even less similar to mice, even less similar to reptiles, even less similar to trees, and so on.
So the claim that all living things have a common ancestor is not supported by a lack of evidence in the commonalty of genomes.
If you have examples of such, post them and we can go from there.
That is exactly the problem. You don't have evidence that common genomes evidence that all living things have a common ancestor. It's an unwarranted assumption.
I honestly don't care if you don't think evolutionary theory is valid science. It makes no difference to me or any other scientist. You're certainly welcome to your opinions.
It makes a difference to a scientist named Dr. James Tour.

And you are welcome to your opinions, but not your facts.
My primary interest here is to stick up for my co-workers and colleagues
Of course. But your intention is not under examination, only your verifiable evidence.
I understand you don't believe in common ancestry. You're welcome to that opinion.
And I understand you do believe in common ancestry. That also your opinion. And remember, belief is a matter of faith, not science.
You presented a video of Dr. Tour where he didn't accurately describe an aspect of evolutionary theory. The only two explanations that I can think of is either intentional omission or ignorance. Do you have another?
Yes. Did you not watch the entire video? He is, as I am, asking for your verifiable, high confidence evidence that supports your claims.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
9,491
3,223
Hartford, Connecticut
✟365,083.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So the claim that all living things have a common ancestor is not supported by a lack of evidence in the commonalty of genomes.

That is exactly the problem. You don't have evidence that common genomes evidence that all living things have a common ancestor. It's an unwarranted assumption.

It makes a difference to a scientist named Dr. James Tour.

And you are welcome to your opinions, but not your facts.

Of course. But your intention is not under examination, only your verifiable evidence.

And I understand you do believe in common ancestry. That also your opinion. And remember, belief is a matter of faith, not science.

Yes. Did you not watch the entire video? He is, as I am, asking for your verifiable, high confidence evidence that supports your claims.
One of the key terms noted above is "nested hierarchies". That's where the evidence is. It's the subject that James Tour has no response for. This is why he is understood among scientists as being either ignorant or dishonest.

And by extension, if you want to support Tour's position, you would have to provide an alternative explanation for nested hierarchies of genetics. Otherwise, scientists won't care about whatever alternative theory it is that you personally believe in.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,868
7,882
65
Massachusetts
✟398,479.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Show me the best evidence for macro evolution.
No, let's first deal with the claim you made: "Macro Evolution is not something we discovered...we made it up - and then looked for evidence to support it." That's a positive claim, and for you to make it implies that you're familiar with possible evidence for macroevolution and have reasons to reject it. Are you? What was your grounds for making that statement?
 
Upvote 0

River Jordan

Well-Known Member
Dec 26, 2024
801
348
37
Pacific NW
✟31,501.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
So the claim that all living things have a common ancestor is not supported by a lack of evidence in the commonalty of genomes.
This sentence doesn't make sense.

That is exactly the problem. You don't have evidence that common genomes evidence that all living things have a common ancestor. It's an unwarranted assumption.
Yes we do. Just because you're not aware of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Evolutionary biologists and geneticists aren't stupid.

It makes a difference to a scientist named Dr. James Tour.
Dr. Tour is a chemist who doesn't present his arguments about evolution in biology, evolutionary biology, or genetics arenas. He is doing nothing more than expressing his personal opinions in YT videos and at church groups.

Of course. But your intention is not under examination, only your verifiable evidence.
I'm not here to make a scientific case for evolution or common ancestry. This is not the proper venue for that; it's a religious forum.

And I understand you do believe in common ancestry. That also your opinion.
And the shared conclusion of effectively all relevant scientists, scientific organizations, university science programs, biotech firms, etc.

And what is your explanation for why Dr. Tour inaccurately described the subject?

Did you not watch the entire video? He is, as I am, asking for your verifiable, high confidence evidence that supports your claims.
See above. If you want to debate science I suggest you seek out an actual science forum and not try and do so in a specifically religious forum.
 
Upvote 0

Platte

Well-Known Member
Jul 14, 2020
1,522
263
57
Virginia
✟76,255.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
No, let's first deal with the claim you made: "Macro Evolution is not something we discovered...we made it up - and then looked for evidence to support it." That's a positive claim, and for you to make it implies that you're familiar with possible evidence for macroevolution and have reasons to reject it. Are you? What was your grounds for making that statement?
My point would be there is an unreasonable jump from any evidence to a Macro evolution conclusion
 
Upvote 0

Aaron112

Well-Known Member
Dec 19, 2022
5,761
1,419
TULSA
✟123,135.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Messianic
Marital Status
In Relationship
There's no facts, no true evidence, no plan nor purpose (other than greed, pride and rebellion against God) to try to say humans evolved at all, let alone anything more than that.
fwiw, so-called 'genetic' problems were made up and blown up into a mountain on false testimony by drug lords to try to hide the damage daily caused by immunizations and other drugs. Don't tell the truth - claim it is genetic..... and so they go on.
 
Upvote 0