Evolution is not evidenced simply by similarity

[DogmaHunter]

Becasue you create the architecture in your imagination.

This is not constructed in someone's imagination:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#/media/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg

Rather, that's just an objective mapping of the facts.

 

[Ophiolite]

There are many professing faith in evolution with no research skills at all.
Pretty much the definition of exceedingly unprofessional.

There are bona fide, practicing plumbers who believe in astrology. So what?

I have zero faith in evolution.
I have zero certified evidence of post graduate research skills.

However,
I accept evolution because it is the best explanation for the available evidence (by far)/.
I accept it because all of those aspects of evolutionary evidence I have been able to personally investigate have proven correct and the majority of the research studies I have explored satisfied me that they had been conducted in a professional, scientific manner.

 

[SkyWriting]

There are bona fide, practicing plumbers who believe in astrology. So what?I have zero faith in evolution.I have zero certified evidence of post graduate research skills.However,I accept evolution because it is the best explanation for the available evidence (by far)/.I accept it because all of those aspects of evolutionary evidence I have been able to personally investigate have proven correct and the majority of the research studies I have explored satisfied me that they had been conducted in a professional, scientific manner.

I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.

They have unabashed enthusiasm for any headline that seems to come from somebody
with any kind of education. These same people will refuse to do enough research
to find any legitimate source to back up their ranting against Christians.
I try to provide them ammunition, and so far no results. They consider such
research far beneath them. Like in this case I could bash "professional scientists."

They are no less arrogant, prideful, and criminal than the general public.

Now I would seek out published articles that support my biased stand:

US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie
The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers
scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index
than papers retracted for other reasons. For example,
fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5
percent more jargon than unretracted papers.
“Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like
words per paper compared to unretracted papers,”
Markowitz said. “This is a non-trivial amount.”

All I ask is that Christianity or religious critics make the same effort
to knock religion. Let me help:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=relegion

 

[Loudmouth]

I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.

You falsely accuse people of having faith in the theory of evolution. We have evidence. We have shown you the evidence. We don't have faith just because you refuse to address the evidence.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.

That does not appear to be a matter of faith, but rather of a particular view of the conditions for and likelihood of life in general. you would need to offer evidence in order to establish it was faith.

They have unabashed enthusiasm for any headline that seems to come from somebody
with any kind of education. These same people will refuse to do enough research to find any legitimate source to back up their ranting against Christians.
I try to provide them ammunition, and so far no results. They consider suchresearch far beneath them.

I am missing what your central thesis is. I am not familiar enough with your philosophy as expressed in your posts, since I have read few of them. Would you care to summarise?

 

[Hoghead1]

I was referring to people posting in this forum who have ungrounded faith
in science and believe, for example, if there is water on mars, we can expect to find life.

They have unabashed enthusiasm for any headline that seems to come from somebody
with any kind of education. These same people will refuse to do enough research
to find any legitimate source to back up their ranting against Christians.
I try to provide them ammunition, and so far no results. They consider such
research far beneath them. Like in this case I could bash "professional scientists."

They are no less arrogant, prideful, and criminal than the general public.

Now I would seek out published articles that support my biased stand:

US vaccine researcher sentenced to prison for fraud
Stanford researchers uncover patterns in how scientists lie
The results showed that fraudulent retracted papers
scored significantly higher on the obfuscation index
than papers retracted for other reasons. For example,
fraudulent papers contained approximately 1.5
percent more jargon than unretracted papers.
“Fradulent papers had about 60 more jargon-like
words per paper compared to unretracted papers,”
Markowitz said. “This is a non-trivial amount.”

All I ask is that Christianity or religious critics make the same effort
to knock religion. Let me help:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=relegion

Yes, there are members here, unqualified laity, who think they know far, far more about it than do the scientists or even theologians, for that matter.

 

[AV1611VET]

We have shown you the evidence.

No, you don't.

Since you can't daisy-chain or dovetail your evidence together, you play connect-the-dots with them.

Meaning you draw an imaginary line to connect them.

Then you call them our "cousins" and expect us to play along.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, you don't.

Yes, we have.

Since you can't daisy-chain or dovetail your evidence together, you play connect-the-dots with them.

That's exactly what you should see if evolution is true.

Meaning you draw an imaginary line to connect them.

Then what features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?

Then you call them our "cousins" and expect us to play along.

For living species, we have their genomes which is a direct record of their ancestry. I have over 200,000 pieces of proof with endogenous retroviruses alone.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, we have.

That's exactly what you should see if evolution is true.



Then what features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?



For living species, we have their genomes which is a direct record of their ancestry. I have over 200,000 pieces of proof with endogenous retroviruses alone.

4600 posts and you're still trying to discuss science with AV in a rational manner. You're persistent, I'll give you that.

 

[Loudmouth]

4600 posts and you're still trying to discuss science with AV in a rational manner. You're persistent, I'll give you that.

There are always new lurkers who may benefit from a demonstration of just how shallow the AV pool is.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's exactly what you should see if evolution is true.

So those skulls were made up ahead of time?

What else should we see if evolution is true that we haven't seen yet?

Then what features are these fossils missing that a real transitional would have?

A daisy chain.

 

[Loudmouth]

So those skulls were made up ahead of time?

Those skulls are real, and they should produce a daisy chain of features if evolution is true, from basal ape to modern human.

What else should we see if evolution is true that we haven't seen yet?A daisy chain.

You didn't answer the question. What features are these skulls missing that a real transitional would have?

 

[AV1611VET]

Those skulls are real,

I believe you.

... and they should produce a daisy chain of features if evolution is true,

Let's see it then.

... from basal ape to modern human.

I would surmise that would take millions upon millions of fossils to daisy chain all those guys.

Remember that example evolutionists like to us? that greyscale picture?

And since you don't have one thousandths of that many fossils, you have to draw imaginary lines.

Here's my favorite example of how evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots:

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's see it then.

You already said that they form a daisy chain of features from basal ape to modern humans. Are you changing your mind?

I would surmise that would take millions upon millions of fossils to daisy chain all those guys.

Why don't those skulls do the job?

Remember that example evolutionists like to us? that greyscale picture?

A grayscale only requires three blocks.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why don't those skulls do the job?

So all those fossils are females, are they?

A gave birth to B, who gave birth to C, who gave birth to D ...

A grayscale only requires three blocks.

A greyscale example, as well as that red-to-violet example would require ... at the rate of one Hertz per year ... the universe to be much older than scientists say it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

So all those fossils are females, are they?

Trying to change the subject, are you?

Just answer the question. Why don't those skulls form a daisy chain of features from basal ape to modern human?

A gave birth to B, who gave birth to C, who gave birth to D ...

Nowhere is any such claim made. Each skull is representative of hominid variation at a certain point in time. The theory of evolution states that if evolution is true then modern human features should have become more pronounced among hominids over time. That is exactly what we have in these skulls.

A greyscale example, as well as that red-to-violet example would require ... at the rate of one Hertz per year ... the universe to be much older than scientists say it is.

What does that have to do with anything?

When we look at pictures of someone's life, do we have to have a picture from every microsecond of their life in order to conclude that they went from being young to old?

 

[AV1611VET]

Nowhere is any such claim made.

Oh, so now you can't even put those fossils in chronological order, let alone dovetail them into each other?

But you can draw imaginary lines between them, can't you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh, so now you can't even put those fossils in chronological order, let alone dovetail them into each other?

They are in chronological order.

But you can draw imaginary lines between them, can't you?

You haven't shown that anything is imaginary. I keep asking you how these skulls are not intermediate, and you can't do it. Even you agree that the line is not imaginary.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They are in chronological order.



You haven't shown that anything is imaginary. I keep asking you how these skulls are not intermediate, and you can't do it. Even you agree that the line is not imaginary.

I'm going to do something you are going to hate. AV, I tag in for your side this time. Just because I can provide some degree of challenge thanks to my scientific background.

We both know that while those skulls are in chronological order, aside from the last one, which is a modern human skull, it's actually impossible to be certain that any of these are ancestral species to humans (case in point, how we thought for a very long time that Neanderthals were a human ancestor, and some preserved DNA of Neanderthals demonstrated otherwise... aside from some potential cross breeding between the two). Furthermore, we can't demonstrate that these species evolved from each other either without significant uncertainty about it. And you want to claim we can daisy chain them? Laughable, they are a nice demonstration of concept, but they are not a genetic chain from one to the other. By chance, it is more likely that the majority of these aren't a part of the direct line to humans than for them all to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm going to do something you are going to hate. AV, I tag in for your side this time. Just because I can provide some degree of challenge thanks to my scientific background.

We both know that while those skulls are in chronological order, aside from the last one, which is a modern human skull, it's actually impossible to be certain that any of these are ancestral species to humans (case in point, how we thought for a very long time that Neanderthals were a human ancestor, and some preserved DNA of Neanderthals demonstrated otherwise... aside from some potential cross breeding between the two). Furthermore, we can't demonstrate that these species evolved from each other either without significant uncertainty about it. And you want to claim we can daisy chain them? Laughable, they are a nice demonstration of concept, but they are not a genetic chain from one to the other. By chance, it is more likely that the majority of these aren't a part of the direct line to humans than for them all to be.

Sarah, you're a gentlewoman and a scholar!