Evolution's Brick Wall

[Job 33:6]

But these generally dead-end on their 'branch-off.' Why is it so hard to find or identify the hybrids that would have to exist if the evolution process did indeed continue to march along 'the main branch' to an actual human 'branch-off'? And even if found, it still wouldn't disprove creation of man at his branch-off.

Oh and I'm sorry. To more directly answer your question, there are many hybrids. I assume you mean hybrids like tiktaalik that have qualities of prior and latter species. If you would like to hear about more, feel free to ask.

 

[pitabread]

A lot of non evidence that is purported as real evidence, still means no evidence at all, and always will.

I find in most cases, it's not that there is no evidence for evolution. It's that a lot of people don't understand the evidence for evolution because they don't understand the underlying biology behind it.

For example, the genetic evidence for common descent relationships of species isn't going to mean much to someone with no understanding of genetics. Likewise the evidence for patterns in the fossil record isn't going to mean much to someone with no understanding of paleontology.

I find those who are most dismissive of the evidence are usually the least informed about the subject in question.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Sorry, you’re missing the point of the NASA SLS/Jet analogy. It has nothing to do with building them. Pitabread said, “Because other than just having bigger brains, we really aren't that unique.” My analogy is just pointing out that although NASA SLS and jets have similar components, also just bigger (some type propulsion system, electrical systems, computer systems, guidance systems, etc.), each is still very unique with different purposes (just like chimps and man are unique with different purposes).

And you are missing the point that the rocket is a radically different design with functions like a rocket engine and features for space travel that do not exist in the jet plane. That is far different than the case with humans, which are basically just modifications of the features in chimps.

 

[pitabread]

My analogy is just pointing out that although NASA SLS and jets have similar components, also just bigger (some type propulsion system, electrical systems, computer systems, guidance systems, etc.), each is still very unique with different purposes

But the NASA SLS and jets don't have similar components. The SLS for example uses solid rocket boosters for propulsion. Jets use jet engines for propulsion. This isn't a case of one thing being a bigger version of the other thing; they are different types of propulsion.

It would be akin to comparing the metabolic systems of plants versus animals. Both take in nutrients, but both do so via different systems.

In the case of human/chimps, a better analogy might be to compare an F-18 Hornet jet with an F-18 Super Hornet. Same jet, just upgraded components. And even that's a poor analogy since humans are not based on chimps but they would both been derived from a shared ancestor.

(See, this is why I wanted to avoid the analogies. Not only is arguing via analogy not valid to begin with, this particular analogy is not useful and only muddies the waters.)

 

[Kenny'sID]

I find in most cases, it's not that there is no evidence for evolution. It's that a lot of people don't understand the evidence for evolution because they don't understand the underlying biology behind it.

For example, the genetic evidence for common descent relationships of species isn't going to mean much to someone with no understanding of genetics. Likewise the evidence for patterns in the fossil record isn't going to mean much to someone with no understanding of paleontology.

I find those who are most dismissive of the evidence are usually the least informed about the subject in question.

And I find that another way to do just as the OP/myself mentioned. "If they don't agree with what you call evidence, they don't understand the so called evidence"

Another created "can't lose" scenario that "you find" to be true, while in reality, it isn't necessarily true at all.

Sounds good to those who choose to use it though.

 

[doubtingmerle]

To some people a whole bunch of "evidence" means that some of it must be right because they have so much

Can you name one person who thinks that?

For the record, we present evidence for evolution, not because we are hoping that something might be valid, but because we have found what we are presenting is valid.

 

[pitabread]

And I find that another way to do just as the OP/myself mentioned. "If they don't agree with what you call evidence, they don't understand the so called evidence"

Then demonstrate it. Can you support the notion that creationists are familiar enough with both the theory of evolution and biology in general to be able to evaluate the validity the evidence for the ToE?

I can provide support for the inverse but I'll give you a chance to make the case on behalf of creationists first.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Then demonstrate it. Can you support the notion that creationists are familiar enough with both the theory of evolution and biology in general to be able to evaluate the validity the evidence for the ToE?

I can provide support for the inverse but I'll give you a chance to make the case on behalf of creationists first.

Can you support what you claimed or is it merely something "you find"? How do you find it? Or is it just another theory, possibility, or conclusion based on assumptions?

And As I recall I could never get anyone to prove evolution so what exactly is it you want me to prove I understand?

 

[pitabread]

Can you support what you claimed or is it merely something "you find"? How do you find it? Or is it just another theory, possibility, or conclusion based on assumptions?

Shall I take it from your response that you can't support the notion that creationists are suitably informed about the theory of evolution and biology in general?

I mean, I'm giving you the chance to make your case here.

And As I recall I could never get anyone to prove evolution so what exactly is it you want me to prove I understand?

I want you to demonstrate that creationists are informed about biology and the theory of evolution. I don't care whether or not you accept it. I just want to see if you can understand it.

If you can't, then you've validated my point.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Can you name one person who thinks that?

No one is going to "say" they think that, lol. I think it happens...hey, prove me wrong.

For the record, we present evidence for evolution, not because we are hoping that something might be valid, but because we have found what we are presenting is valid.

You present what you "think" is evidence. To call it evidence flat out and undoubtedly, then expect anyone to just buy that is a bit arrogant...don't you think. Maybe it should be presented as what you "feel is evidence", but instead it's presented as fact by many when they have never seen evolution take place at all, not as a whole or what is being taught over all as fact.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Shall I take it from your response that you can't support the notion that creationists are suitably informed about the theory of evolution and biology in general?

That's one oddball question...rephrase it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Shall I take it from your response that you can't support the notion that creationists are suitably informed about the theory of evolution and biology in general?

I mean, I'm giving you the chance to make your case here.



I want you to demonstrate that creationists are informed about biology and the theory of evolution. I don't care whether or not you accept it. I just want to see if you can understand it.

If you can't, then you've validated my point.

You were the one who made the claim we didn't understand it...you demonstrate/support that.

Most people understand the basics of your theory/claims. You show me proof of evolution and I'll make it a point to understand it. As of yet, you have not been able to do that..I must have asked well over a hundred times.

And if you can't do that, you have validated what has always been my point.

 

[pitabread]

That's one oddball question...rephrase it.

...

Allow me to reiterate my post #1241 then:

People unfamiliar with the theory of evolution and biology in general are less likely to understand the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

When someone claims there is little or no evidence for evolution, the individual making such claim most likely doesn't have the background knowledge to properly evaluate the evidence in the first place.

Do you dispute any of the above? Can you demonstrate the contrary?

 

[Kenny'sID]

...

Allow me to reiterate my post #1241 then:

People unfamiliar with the theory of evolution and biology in general are less likely to understand the evidence which supports the theory of evolution.

When someone claims there is little or no evidence for evolution, the individual making such claim most likely doesn't have the background knowledge to properly evaluate the evidence in the first place.

Do you dispute any of the above? Can you demonstrate the contrary?

You need to read my last post...it covers that.

 

[pitabread]

You were the one who made the claim we didn't understand it...you demonstrate/support that.

Oh, I certainly can. I just wanted to give the first crack at rebutting it, since you took exception to it.

I'm giving you the first punch.

You show me proof of evolution and I'll make it a point to understand it. As of yet, you have not been able to do that..I must have asked well over a hundred times.

Because it's not an honest ask. If you wanted to honestly make the effort to understand the theory of evolution and how it is supported by evidence, you don't need to keep issuing challenges here. You can go and take a free course on the subject and learn for yourself: Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior

But you refuse to do that. You also refuse to look at any source material (your "no links" rule). To be blunt: your ask for "proof of evolution" is a farce.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Will you demonstrate you understand how God made the animals just as they are? Or is it, you don't believe he exists so how can you?
You have no proof he did, and I've no proof evolution did.

Catching on yet?

 

[Job 33:6]

Many young earthers do not understand geology either. And anti evolutionists also typically do not understand paleontology.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Because it's not an honest ask. If you wanted to honestly make the effort to understand the theory of evolution and how it is supported by evidence, you don't need to keep issuing challenges here.

Are you listening to yourself? That so-called challenge is the most basic question I can possibly ask. You want me to believe evolution, I ask you to prove evolution.

And you turn around and call the most obvious question on the matter "dishonest"?

Bizarre.

 

[pitabread]

You want me to believe evolution, I ask you to prove evolution.

No, I don't want you to "believe in it". Rather, I'd like for you to understand it.

Whether you accept it or not is completely irrelevant to me.

And you turn around and call the most obvious question on the matter "dishonest"?

Because your behavior does not reflect someone who is honestly looking to learn.

If you were truly interested and honest in wanting to learn about biology evolution, there are free courses on the subject:

Principles of Evolution, Ecology and Behavior
Introduction to Genetics and Evolution

You can learn if you want to. The choice is yours.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, I don't want you to "believe in it". Rather, I'd like for you to understand it.

Because your behavior does not reflect someone who is honestly looking to learn.

If you choose not to get my points, that is up to you.

You can learn if you want to. The choice is yours.

And if I don't agree that is proof of evolution, then I did not want to learn...right?

We've come full circle now.