Evolution is not science

[AV1611VET]

It's not crackpot when we have evidence. LOTS of evidence.

Your interpretation of evidence works like this:

I buy two cans of Lincoln logs.

Can A was made from Silver Maple trees.

Can B was made from Crimson King Maple trees.

I then make an ape from Can A and a man from Can B.

Someone looks at these two and concludes common ancestry over common design.

 

[TrekkyAtheist]

Your interpretation of evidence works like this:

I buy two cans of Lincoln logs.

Can A was made from Silver Maple trees.

Can B was made from Crimson King Maple trees.

I then make an ape from Can A and a man from Can B.

Someone looks at these two and concludes common ancestry over common design.

If you observed a paternity test that showed a man was the father of a child, would you then have the same disdain for this as evidence of ancestry and claim that the child and man simply have similar design?

There are millions of explanations that can explain a family-tree-like structure in the multitude of life, but the one that makes the most sense is that life is a family. There is no reason for "common design," especially among creatures that are so different, like fish and mammals. Many of these "common design" characteristics don't make any sense from a design point of view, like fingers in fins, or the remnants of tails in tail-less animals, or a vocal chord nerve in speechless animals. Is it not much more likely that life is a related family instead of an arbitrarily similarly designed but unrelated community?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Your interpretation of evidence works like this:

I buy two cans of Lincoln logs.

Can A was made from Silver Maple trees.

Can B was made from Crimson King Maple trees.

I then make an ape from Can A and a man from Can B.

Someone looks at these two and concludes common ancestry over common design.

Stick with Lincoln Logs, AV.

 

[Tempus Fugit]

Evolution can not be proven becuase nobody has ever seen it happening! Science is meant to be based on direct observation but evolutionists like Jerry Coyne believes in things they can not see!

Um, we can observe fossils and genetic similarities between various species. We can observe vestigial organs and "micro"-evolution in bacteria and pets. What exactly is your criteria of "observe"? That we have to literally see prehistoric tiny mammals evolve into homo sapiens over hundreds of millions of years? Do you not believe that Juilius Caesar existed because you never saw him around?

Evolution by natural selection is the most parsimonious theory that effectively explains the fossil record, genetic similarities, etc. in our collection of evidence. It has an extremely successful track record in making predictions and has been agreed with various other scientific fields. How is it not science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Um, we can observe fossils and genetic similarities between various species.

I like the way you worded that.

You can "observe" fossils and genetic similarities.

As if you guys sit and watch them demonstrate macroevolution for you.

And "various species" can include microevolution; "diverse species" does not, does it?

Thus it didn't occur to you to say:

Um, we can see fossils and genetic similarities among diverse species.

... did it?

Else it would fall within the example of the Lincoln Logs, would it not?

 

[fireof god98]

Um, we can observe fossils and genetic similarities between various species. We can observe vestigial organs and "micro"-evolution in bacteria and pets. What exactly is your criteria of "observe"? That we have to literally see prehistoric tiny mammals evolve into homo sapiens over hundreds of millions of years? Do you not believe that Juilius Caesar existed because you never saw him around?

Evolution by natural selection is the most parsimonious theory that effectively explains the fossil record, genetic similarities, etc. in our collection of evidence. It has an extremely successful track record in making predictions and has been agreed with various other scientific fields. How is it not science?

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity=Richard dawkins

 

[Tempus Fugit]

As if you guys sit and watch them demonstrate macroevolution for you.

LOL we don't sit and watch stars go supernova for us but we can still conclude that the stars going nova are those in later stages than those still stable. That's still considered valid astronomy, and I don't see how the massive preponderance of evidence supporting evolution can possibly be better explained by an alternative theory.

 

[fireof god98]

we have the bones to prove evolution and we see it everyday look at the swine flu also at the The peppered moth

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL we don't sit and watch stars go supernova for us but we can still conclude that the stars going nova are those in later stages than those still stable.

You sit and say "we can observe stars going nova," do you?

 

[AV1611VET]

we have the bones to prove evolution and we see it everyday look at the swine flu also at the The peppered moth

The Swine flu and Peppered Moth are fossils, are they?

 

[kellhus]

The Swine flu and Peppered Moth are fossils, are they?

AV, do you know what the word "and" means in that sentence? It was indicating a transition to a new thought. It means swine flu was being cited in addition to the fossils.

 

[fireof god98]

The Swine flu and Peppered Moth are fossils, are they?

evidence for evolution is not just found in fossils my friend

 

[TrekkyAtheist]

In response to the common design argument:

It doesn't explain things like the class of human endogenous retroviruses (HERV-K) that are in the same spot in both human and chimpanzee DNA. So there are a couple of explanations.

1. The proverbial "Adam and Eve" of both humans and chimpanzees were separately invected by not one retrovirus, but several several of the same retroviruses in the exact same spot in their genome, which was then passed on to their ancestors. The chances of this happening are astronomically unlikely.

2. The creator of chimpanzees and humans designed them both with what seem like remnants of retroviruses in their DNA in the exact same spots for some reason.

3. Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestors that were infected by retroviruses and then passed on to their descendants.

This is essentially the equivalent of an evolutionary paternity test. Unless we are willing to believe in the unlikely event of two separate identical infections or the equally unlikely event of a creator who infected his creations with retroviral DNA, this is simply the best argument for a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans. And there are other examples too with bonobos, gorillas, rhesus monkeys, etc, and when studied and compared, their DNA and the history contained in the genome reveal a family tree. If you believe in a theory of common design to explain similarities between the animal kingdom, then why does the creator insist on designing animals to appear as if they are related, rather than having form follow function?

 

[fireof god98]

In response to the common design argument:

It doesn't explain things like the class of human endogenous retroviruses (HERV-K) that are in the same spot in both human and chimpanzee DNA. So there are a couple of explanations.

1. The proverbial "Adam and Eve" of both humans and chimpanzees were separately invected by not one retrovirus, but several several of the same retroviruses in the exact same spot in their genome, which was then passed on to their ancestors. The chances of this happening are astronomically unlikely.

2. The creator of chimpanzees and humans designed them both with what seem like remnants of retroviruses in their DNA in the exact same spots for some reason.

3. Chimpanzees and humans share a common ancestors that were infected by retroviruses and then passed on to their descendants.

This is essentially the equivalent of an evolutionary paternity test. Unless we are willing to believe in the unlikely event of two separate identical infections or the equally unlikely event of a creator who infected his creations with retroviral DNA, this is simply the best argument for a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans. And there are other examples too with bonobos, gorillas, rhesus monkeys, etc, and when studied and compared, their DNA and the history contained in the genome reveal a family tree. If you believe in a theory of common design to explain similarities between the animal kingdom, then why does the creator insist on designing animals to appear as if they are related, rather than having form follow function?

well said

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, do you know what the word "and" means in that sentence? It was indicating a transition to a new thought. It means swine flu was being cited in addition to the fossils.

Oh, sorry.

 

[AV1611VET]

evidence for evolution is not just found in fossils my friend

I know.

The example I've used over the years is my Roundup™ having to be stronger each year.

But remember:

It's still Roundup™.

 

[TrekkyAtheist]

I know.

The example I've used over the years is my Roundup™ having to be stronger each year.

But remember:

It's still Roundup™.

So you believe in so-called "microevolution" or adaptation, but not "macroevolution" or speciation. What do you think prevents animals from changing "too much"? Is there some sort of barrier that allows animals to change, but not change a lot?

 

[AV1611VET]

So you believe in so-called "microevolution" or adaptation, but not "macroevolution" or speciation. What do you think prevents animals from changing "too much"? Is there some sort of barrier that allows animals to change, but not change a lot?

2

 

[TrekkyAtheist]

2

If God is purposefully preventing evolution, that raises four questions:

1. Why? Couldn't God simply make evolution impossible through a natural and explainable barrier?

2. Further, why would God want to prevent evolution in the first place? Is it so evil that He must step in to intervene?

3. If God intervenes to prevent speciation, wouldn't that entail that, given no natural explanation, this interference is an observable act of God – a miracle? This would be the most important observation in human history and possibly actual proof of the creator. Why hasn't anyone attempted to document this?

4. Does God not care about plants or fruit flies or several other animals that have been observed changing into viable groups incapable of with their original group – speciation?

And isn't this just an admission that speciation is possible if God allowed it to occur?

 

[AV1611VET]

1. Why? Couldn't God simply make evolution impossible through a natural and explainable barrier?

Yes, but who in the Bible was fooled by evolution?

It's not until the end times that evolution becomes a viable threat to creationism; and in my opinion, it is going to become even more formidable during the Tribulation period, where the Antichrist is going to demonstrate abiogenesis.

In short, evolution is a doctrine that is reserved for Jesus Christ to put down.

2. Further, why would God want to prevent evolution in the first place?

Occam's Razor.

Evolution takes too much time, and the universe has only been in existence for just over 6000 years.

In addition, why daisy-chain life, when life can be created instantly?

3. If God intervenes to prevent speciation, wouldn't that entail that, given no natural explanation, this interference is an observable act of God – a miracle?

Your key words are: given no natural explanation.

Satan will make sure that those who don't want to believe in God will have a natural explanation for every jot and tittle in the Bible.

Jesus walked on water? simple ... it was a mirage

Jesus resurrected: simple ... it was someone else masquerading as Jesus

Jesus born of a virgin? simple ... virgin means "young woman"

Etc and so ad nauseum on.

4. Does God not care about plants or fruit flies or several other animals that have been observed changing into viable groups incapable of with their original group – speciation?

I don't understand this question.

And isn't this just an admission that speciation is possible if God allowed it to occur?

If that was God's plan for populating the earth with plants and animals, yes.

His method, however, is a form of modified punctuated equilibrium (for lack of a better term), where miracle animals -- called "kinds" -- gave birth to different genera.

In my opinion.