Evolution Question

[Cabal]

No they haven't change theory to fact because it is not a fact. They don't call it a fact because they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution actually occurred.

No one was around to actually wittiness "evolution". Time travel hasn't been invented so we can't go back 1,000 - 6,000 yrs and watch this occur.

Nope, fraid not. Mutation definitely occurs - speciation definitely occurs. Fact.

(Still occurs today y'know! Still have genes, mutagens and selective pressures still exist! )

 

[Cabal]

So that 2% represents a barrier that nature cannot cross?

No, there merely are differences. There is no evidence for your arbitrary barrier.

In other words, you don't know?

No, I'm telling you that regardless of what the answer is, it doesn't alter the outcome of what the word "theory" means. And just because science made (remarkably few) doozies in its past, doesn't automatically put evolution into question. You'll need better evidence than that. And evolution is already faaaaar beyond those kind of errors.

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Sorta like Flat Earth Theory, Geocentrism, and Phlogiston?

Not to mention Aryan Supremacy and the Malthusian Doctrine?

Do you deny that scientists used to teach these as --- at the least --- "plausible"?

What about the Bermuda Triangle or Psychokenesis?

Can you answer w/o invoking the No True Scotsman Fallicy?

Flat Earth and Geocentrism were known to be wrong since the ancient Greek Pythagoras. Their acceptance in their relative scientific fields is greatly exagerated.

Phlogiston was breifly accepted, although not for long, and it was the scientific methood that debunked it.

Aryan supremacy was never accepted by the scientific community... except maybe in Germany in the early 1940s, but aside from that.

The Bermuda Triangle and psychokinesis were never theories. The first being superstition.

Unlike your Bible, science doesn't claim to know all the answers. Science wouldn't exist if all the answers were known, because the scientific methood is the process of trying to obtain answers, based off of evidence. Better to admit you don't know and try to find out, than believe you know everything and get it wrong, eh?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, I'm telling you that regardless of what the answer is, it doesn't alter the outcome of what the word "theory" means.

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

Are you telling me that these "doozies" I mentioned have been scientifically debunked?

That they do not, will not, and cannot scientifically work?

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

No they haven't change theory to fact because it is not a fact. They don't call it a fact because they cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that evolution actually occurred.

No one was around to actually wittiness "evolution". Time travel hasn't been invented so we can't go back 1,000 - 6,000 yrs and watch this occur.

As described in that video (Which you clearly didn't watch), a theory is an explanation that explains a very large number of facts. I CBA to repeat the video, so just watch it.

We have witnessed evolution.

There is a type of bacteria that has evolved to feed off of nylon, it produces the enzyme nylonase to digest it.

Nylon is a synthetic, man-made material, it doesn't occur naturally, so it existing before we created nylon is impossible. We've observed this bacteria evolve over the past 70 years.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Nope, fraid not. Mutation definitely occurs - speciation definitely occurs. Fact.

(Still occurs today y'know! Still have genes, mutagens and selective pressures still exist! )

Hmmmm so are we (i.e. humans) still evolving or did science just know that it's time to stop evolving?

Because seriously I'd hate to wake up next to my husband and see that science has decided to regress and make us monkey/apes/chimps etc. again LOL.

 

[Cabal]

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

Are you telling me that these "doozies" I mentioned have been scientifically debunked?

That they do not, will not, and cannot scientifically work?

Sure, why not, I don't really care - my point was, however, that they had nothing to do with the point being discussed. No, naming something a theory doesn't make it automatically correct - but neither does it automatically mean something's a guess or a fabrication.

We can sit here and argue semantics, it seems to be what you and your ilk excel at (except for when it comes to understand what the word "theory means, but anyway) or we can deal with what actually makes up the meat of a scientific theory - facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Aryan supremacy was never accepted by the scientific community...

Well, ain't that a shame, VD?

Did someone [or Someone] butt in and cut the scientists' research short?

So it's a theory that'll remain a mystery now?

And please feel free to show me where the Bible says It has all the answers.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

I CBA to repeat the video, so just watch it.

I'll watch the video not at home at the moment

 

[Cabal]

Hmmmm so are we (i.e. humans) still evolving or did science just know that it's time to stop evolving?

Because seriously I'd hate to wake up next to my husband and see that science has decided to regress and make us monkey/apes/chimps etc. again LOL.

Despite your obvious sarcasm I'm going to answer the point anyway - consider yourself fortunate.

No, science didn't KNOW that it's time to stop evolving. Evolution is an unguided process that allows for optimisation of a species within a given niche. Given variation in genes due to mutation, change over time is inevitable and has no reason to stop happening. And given the preponderance of mutagens and inherent artefacts like gene copying errors, that's never going to happen.

And it's unlikely that any human will revert back to a chimp as downgrading our intelligence is unlikely to prove advantageous any time soon.

Now, are you going to start taking part in the discussion again?

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Hmmmm so are we (i.e. humans) still evolving or did science just know that it's time to stop evolving?

Because seriously I'd hate to wake up next to my husband and see that science has decided to regress and make us monkey/apes/chimps etc. again LOL.

Yes, we are still evolving. No, your husband won't wake up as a chimp, unless he already is one. (It wouldn't supprise me.)

Evolution doesn't happen overnight. Think of it this way, if you had a kid and took a photo of them every day of their entire life, from baby to OAP, each photo would look virtually identical to the next chronological one.

Yet, if you were to look at the first, middle and last photos, you'd see huge differences.

Just to add, for the ~50th time:

We did not evolve from any modern great apes. We share a common ancestor.

 

[Cabal]

Well, ain't that a shame, VD?

Did someone [or Someone] butt in and cut the scientists' research short?

So it's a theory that'll remain a mystery now?

Well, ain't that a shame, AV?

Someone pwn your pathetic point into the ground?

ETA: Oh, and nice snide remark about implying scientists would be in on the Nazi "research". Clearly manners can take a hike for Jesus too.

And please feel free to show me where the Bible says It has all the answers.

It doesn't, but given how some people act, you'd wonder....

 

[AV1611VET]

Someone pwn your pathetic point in the ground?

My "pathetic, pwned, point" is that nature can be cruel and unusual --- and that nature's prophets (scientists) can indeed use nature to run [scientifically-justified] experiments that lead to inhumane and immoral treatment.

We need Someone outside of the realm of science to put restrictions in place.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Just to add, for the ~50th time:

We did not evolve from any modern great apes. We share a common ancestor.

Ok well just so you know, this modern day ape thing you keep speaking of, in the other thread all the evolutionist seem to be posting pics of "modern day apes". You should really let them know, this doesn't help your case when you keep repeating (what did you say the 50th time?) "We didn't come from modern day apes!"

 

[Cabal]

My "pathetic, pwned, point" is that nature can be cruel and unusual --- and that nature's prophets (scientists) can indeed use nature to run [scientifically-justified] experiments that lead to inhumane and immoral treatment.

We need Someone outside of the realm of science to put restrictions in place.

Ooh, and that'd be mandated by organised religion wouldn't it! After all, they'd know tons about inhumane and immoral treatment! Let the hilarity begin!

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

My "pathetic, pwned, point" is that nature can be cruel and unusual --- and that nature's prophets (scientists) can indeed use nature to run [scientifically-justified] experiments that lead to inhumane and immoral treatment.

We need Someone outside of the realm of science to put restrictions in place.

Nature is cruel, and constantly changing, and so must life if it is to survive nature's constantly changing, hostile, environments.

It can be unusual, but when it is, we end up with a mass extinction, because life can't adapt and evolve to keep up with it, when it gets too unusual.

After that, you're making up jibberish.

Scientists being nature's prophets?

In comparison to the inhumane atrocities commited by the church, ultimately resulting in nothing beneficial to anyone, the few cases of inhumanity caused by science is trivial, at best. But now the inhumanity is kept to a very, very low minimum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ooh, and that'd be mandated by organised religion wouldn't it! After all, they'd know tons about inhumane and immoral treatment! Let the hilarity begin!

Someone correct me if I'm wrong --- but the US is the only country in the world that has --- embedded in its Constitution --- a Bill of Rights that ensures no pogrom will ever legally occur on its soil.

Which is exactly what our first 10 Ammendments ensure.

 

[GuidanceNeeded]

Ooh, and that'd be mandated by organised religion wouldn't it! After all, they'd know tons about inhumane and immoral treatment! Let the hilarity begin!

So lets go ahead and discuss this "modern day ape".

What I am to believe is that 1 million yrs ago (just for the sake of argument, I'll let this one go) there were apes. Now these apes weren't like the apes today but considered apes nonetheless. Now the apes today are their ancestors of the apes back then. Now during the evolving process some apes remained "looking" like apes but really aren't the same apes from 1 million yrs ago; BUT other apes took on the human form (i.e US)?????

WOW if my understanding of this evolution thing is correct, that sounds a little far fetched!

 

[Vehementi Dominus]

Ok well just so you know, this modern day ape thing you keep speaking of, in the other thread all the evolutionist seem to be posting pics of "modern day apes". You should really let them know, this doesn't help your case when you keep repeating (what did you say the 50th time?) "We didn't come from modern day apes!"

Yes, ok, now you've grasped the "We did not evolve from modern day great apes." bit.

Now let's see if you can master the "We share a common ancestor" part.

We both evolved from the same species, millions and millions of years ago, the environment caused them to go down one evolutionary path, whilst we went down another. Both paths were equally suited to survive, but that divergence shows that atthat fork, our ancestors were better at surviving one way, whilst other ape's ancestors were better at surviving another way.

If you want evidence of that, look up the fusion in human chromasome #2. Chimps have 1 extra chromasome than us, but that's because that extra one has fused with another chromasome in us. This means that at some point in our evolutionary history, that chromasome was seperate from human chromasome #2, and was its own chromasome. Just like in modern day chimps. Obviously your own research would explain it in more detail, such as how it became fused, and how we know it was fused in us, and the chimps didn't start off with the same chromasome, having it split into two chromasomes in the chimp genome, but that's the basics of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

In comparison to the inhumane atrocities commited by the church...

Excuse me --- but please answer this honestly --- (okay, please just answer it):

The Crusades --- were they done in respect to the Bible - or in spite of the Bible?

Aryan Supremacy --- in respect to nature - or in spite of nature?