Evolution's Brick Wall

[Speedwell]

Government and science have based our whole education system on it.

Then how come you never hear of it in school except in biology class?

 

[Speedwell]

Its the essence of Mendelian genetics, yea actually they have.

So how does it work?

 

[inquiring mind]

Then how come you never hear of it in school except in biology class?

You're right, my statement sounds broad with "whole educational system", but I was referring to the whole education system pertaining to biology.

 

[sfs]

I saw somewhere that just the “thought-to-be” or “possibly” ape to Hominid transitional fossils could be put in a shoe box and there’d still be room for the shoes. I don’t have a clue how accurate (if at all) that statement is,

It's not accurate.

 

[sfs]

Its the essence of Mendelian genetics, yea actually they have.

Do tell. Where did Mendel show that mutations don't happen?

 

[Speedwell]

You're right, my statement sounds broad with "whole educational system", but I was referring to the whole education system pertaining to biology.

And quite right, too. Creationism is not science. It rests on an entirely different epistemological footing than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science. Since the purpose of basic introductory science classes--like high school biology--is primarily to teach the methods of science, creationism has no place there.

 

[inquiring mind]

And quite right, too. Creationism is not science. It rests on an entirely different epistemological footing than science. Even if creationists were right about our origins and scientists wrong, creationism still wouldn't be science. Since the purpose of basic introductory science classes--like high school biology--is primarily to teach the methods of science, creationism has no place there.

"No place" is one thing, but "those" discounting it as "quackery" is another, especially when the scientific theory is lacking in decisive evidence after all this time.

 

[sfs]

No place" is one thing, but "those" discounting it as "quackery" is another, especially when the scientific theory is lacking in decisive evidence after all this time.

Which scientific theory is lacking in decisive evidence? Common descent has a wide range of decisive evidence in its favor.

 

[inquiring mind]

Which scientific theory is lacking in decisive evidence? Common descent has a wide range of decisive evidence in its favor.

A wide range of evidence, but decisive evidence... show me the indisputable bridge.

 

[xianghua]

What exactly do you think is lacking in the fossil evidence for humans? Here's how brain size changed over millions of years. Where do you think humans start?

View attachment 236143

nice. like this one:

https://www.vwgouldagency.com/the-difference-between-personal-and-commercial-auto-insurance

 

[pitabread]

nice. like this one:

No.

 

[sfs]

A wide range of evidence, but decisive evidence... show me the indisputable bridge.

You asked for decisive evidence, not a specific fossil. The field with the strongest set of evidence is genetics. If you can come up with any explanation for the patterns we see in genetics that isn't common descent, I'm all ears.

 

[inquiring mind]

You asked for decisive evidence, not a specific fossil. The field with the strongest set of evidence is genetics. If you can come up with any explanation for the patterns we see in genetics that isn't common descent, I'm all ears.

I’m neither a proponent of evolution (as the answer to how man became man) nor a geneticist, so all I can do is ask questions.

 

[inquiring mind]

You asked for decisive evidence, not a specific fossil.

To me, decisive evidence would be a trail of specific fossils indisputably bridging ape and modern man, but I don't think that will ever happen.

 

[sfs]

To me, decisive evidence would be a trail of specific fossils indisputably bridging ape and modern man, but I don't think that will ever happen.

Not for me. Genetics is more objective and provides more data. For example, here is one of the many kinds of genetic data that common ancestry explains and predicts. I can't see why it would be so successful if it weren't also true.

 

[inquiring mind]

Not for me. Genetics is more objective and provides more data. For example, here is one of the many kinds of genetic data that common ancestry explains and predicts. I can't see why it would be so successful if it weren't also true.

Come on though, you have to admit that if the eye of the needle was ever threaded with a connected chain of fossils that actually bridged primitive life forms to modern man, evolutionists would run with it discrediting Genesis and possibly the whole Bible. Kind of like the Jaws movie dialogue, you say “genetics” and “it looks as though,” and everyone says huh… what? But, you say indisputable amounts of “linked fossil evidence confirming the line”...

 

[sfs]

Come on though, you have to admit that if the eye of the needle was ever threaded with a connected chain of fossils that actually bridged primitive life forms to modern man, evolutionists would run with it discrediting Genesis and possibly the whole Bible.

Um, what? Biologists do not, with rare exceptions, have the slightest interest in discrediting Genesis. We're interested in understanding the world around us. Some of us are believers (in various religions) and a lot of us aren't, but those differences have no effect on the science we do. And no -- no sequence of fossils could ever be more persuasive than the genetic evidence already is.

 

[AV1611VET]

But, you say indisputable amounts of “linked fossil evidence confirming the line”...

... and you've got a panic on your hands on the Fourth Reich!

 

[AV1611VET]

Biologists do not, with rare exceptions, have the slightest interest in discrediting Genesis.

They don't have to.

Their information is in spite of the Bible; not with respect to It.

Put another way, the discrediting is embedded in the information they disseminate.

 

[inquiring mind]

Um, what? Biologists do not, with rare exceptions, have the slightest interest in discrediting Genesis.

That's why I specified "evolutionists" in my post.