How to choose between creation and evolution.

[rjs330]

So you say. But the evidence we have from genetics, molecular biology, fossils, modern biogeography, etc. etc., etc. is that they do.



As I already said and you just ignored, buildings don't have ancestors or descent as they don't reproduce. Living things do have ancestors or descent as they do reproduce. Hence, your argument simply doesn't work. So, why do you just repeat it without addressing this point?



Evolution is entirely observable through the evidence. Probably the best evidence for evolution is the genetic record for evolution as preserved in the genomes of currently living things. These genomes can be independently observed and checked. Hence evolution is entirely testable and falsifiable as if the genetic record did not show evidence of evolution, then evolution would have been disproved.



Except of course that we have plenty of observable verifiable testable evidence for evolution. As in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution which you just hand-wave away without even demonstrating that you understand the evidence.



No it isn't. We have fossil evidence showing that living things appeared over time from simple to complex. We have biochemical evidence. We have biogeographical evidence. We have evidence from things such as ring species. We have the genetic evidence. All of this can be observed, tested, put through the ringer, and comes up with one answer: evolution and common descent.

You're just trying the old trick of simply ignoring all evidence put to you, and then come back and say that there is none. This is easily shown to be wrong, so I don't know what you expect to gain from it apart from being able to continue posting even though arguments have been put to you that you simply have absolutely no comeback for.



There is plenty of evidence where creatures came from and where they split off. The genetic evidence is the best for this, but the fossil evidence, the morphological evidence, the biochemical evidence, all of this adds to the humongous evidence we have for evolution and common descent. This evidence is verifiable and testable. As anyone with the facilities can sequence the genomes and check the official version. The genomes for many creatures including human beings can be downloaded from the net, and checked. I've got it on my hard drive. The software we use to check for relationships between organisms can be downloaded anyone can check the published results to see if they are correct. The amount of verifiable testable evidence just goes on and on.

BTW: You mentioned the common ancestor of dogs and cats. This is an excellent way of showing how evolution is testable. The genomes of cats and dogs allow us to estimate the time that the common ancestor of dogs and cats lived. Therefore, we know when to look for that ancestor. And, there are quite a few examples of these ancestors being found at the predicted time. And, they found it: Dormaalocyon. Evolution: tested and yet again it passes the test.

Now that I've given you all this objective verifiable testable evidence for common descent and evolution, perhaps you could give me some verifiable testable evidence for your religious worldview?

And here's my own prediction. Yet again you will simply ignore all of this, and come back pretending that there isn't any evidence for common descent. Oh, and you won't give any objective verifiable evidence for your own beliefs.

So you say, but you have yet to show me one. Show me one that split off and what it was before the split and what it split into. Show the progression and when it happened. I mean actually show it. Don't assume it. Show it.

Please show me any evidence is something that has verifiable testable, observable and reproducible evidence of evolution from a common ancestor really occurred. Show me something to prove it could have occurred because we can or have seen it happening.

 

[rjs330]

My point still stands. You sitting on your chair, typing away on a forum, saying how scientists are just 'assuming' (since you people oh so love that word) about everything they say about theory of evolution, while you are doing... absolutely nothing to show that they're wrong.
You're an armchair scientist, nothing more. And a pretty bad one at that.

Please show me evidence of something actually occurring as you and the other scientists say it happened. Show me observed and tested science of something evolving in the macro evolution such as whatever it was that was before the cat and what was it and what did it branch from and branch into to create the cat and what else did it eventually become.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Please show me evidence of something actually occurring as you and the other scientists say it happened. Show me observed and tested science of something evolving in the macro evolution such as whatever it was that was before the cat and what was it and what did it branch from and branch into to create the cat and what else did it eventually become.

What in your view is 'observed and tested science'?

 

[rjs330]

We're not talking about common features of phenotype, but about damaged genes and their distribution.

Were the genes damaged from the start or did they become damaged?

 

[rjs330]

What if I told you there was no evidence for the Moon. Nothing observable, verifiable, testable or reproducible. Would you agree with me?



I accept that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to the subject at hand. And that evidence is completely irrelevant in this situation, since you'll just dismiss anything you're presented with. You're just stone-walling.

Oh we can't see the moon? What is that then? What is it that lights our sky at night if its not observable?

 

[pitabread]

Oh we can't see the moon? What is that then?

Prove to me the moon exists.

What is it that lights our sky at night if its not observable?

Atmospheric reflection. There's no evidence for the moon. It's not observable, verifiable, repeatable or testable.

You can't provide any evidence for it because there is none.

 

[Speedwell]

Were the genes damaged from the start or did they become damaged?

They became damaged and the damage was passed down to their offspring. ERV insertions are a good example of this kind of thing and are useful in tracing evolutionary lines of descent. Because they are random, if two different species have them in the same location the odds are they are related.

 

[rjs330]

Prove to me the moon exists.



Atmospheric reflection. There's no evidence for the moon. It's not observable, verifiable, repeatable or testable.

You can't provide any evidence for it because there is none.

Prove to me we exist. There are those that don't believe we really exist. This world doesn't exist. We have people who have been there and walked on it. We have moon rocks. It's been observed verified and tested. More than once.

But we have never observed evolution from a common ancestor. We haven't even observed evolution in process where a divide has occurred such as the formation of cats from whatever they divided from, we haven't been able to test it or verify that it can happen much less that it has happened.

We've tested the moon rocks.

 

[pitabread]

We have people who have been there and walked on it. We have moon rocks. It's been observed verified and tested. More than once.

Stories aren't evidence and neither are a bunch of rocks. Rocks could have come from anywhere.

So far you're not producing any evidence because you can't prove the moon exists. We have never observed it; it's not testable, replicable or verifiable.

We've tested the moon rocks.

There are no moon rocks.

 

[Speedwell]

We have people who have been there and walked on it. We have moon rocks. It's been observed verified and tested. More than once.

We've tested the moon rocks.

Many of your coreligionists believe the whole moon trip was a fake, concocted by the same secular humanist conspiracy that gave us the theory of evolution.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Because the genes were not necessary. Common design does not mean exactness. Just like common design in buildings do not mean all buildings are exactly the same. It makes perfect sense for common design. Commonality and similarity of common design goes not mean everything is exactly the same.

Common design does not mean exactness, but we not just talking about a little slop here.We're talking about very specific things such as broken genes and many, many, other things that make no sense if there is a competent designer at all.

Why would a competent designer include broken genes in organisms, and why would that designer include genes that are broken in the same way for very similar organisms but broken in different way for less similar organisms. If creatures were created as is, then why are fossils found in different layers of rock starting with simple organisms and becoming more complex. Why aren't rabbit fossils found in Cambrian rocks. And so on and so on.

You keep talking about buildings, but we're talking about living things that are very different. Talking about buildings is avoiding the topic.

We also have no evidence of a designer at all. Unless you can provide some.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

So you say, but you have yet to show me one. Show me one that split off and what it was before the split and what it split into. Show the progression and when it happened. I mean actually show it. Don't assume it. Show it.

There are plenty of examples of speciation that have been observed. Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

And it matters nowt that, e.g. we haven't yet found the common ancestor of humans and chimps. Since we know there is a common ancestor of humans and chimps (let alone the rest) given all the evidence I've given. Which you have been spectacularly unable to address.

Please show me any evidence is something that has verifiable testable, observable and reproducible evidence of evolution from a common ancestor really occurred. Show me something to prove it could have occurred because we can or have seen it happening.

I've shown you utter loads of evidence. I've explained why it is testable, verifiable, and objective. And why the observations are reproducible. You've been unable to address even one example. You just dodge. You just stonewall. You have no evidence at all for your own view of how life started, and you just try to arm-wave away and created ridiculous objections to evidence that you simply have no cogent response to.

And here's a question for you: Can you explain how if chimps and humans have a common ancestor and are different species, that there won't have been at least one species branching off another. Either we branched off chimps, chimps branched off us, or we both branched off a common separate species. And we know from fossil evidence that there has been a succession of species since that time. Branching off all over the place.

EDIT: The analogy of denying the moon is very apt. Anyone can simply dig their heels in and deny anything. Your denial of evolution and the evidence for it is no more reasonable than stonewalling denial of evidence that there is a moon.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Studying anatomy confirms design.

Does it?
Then why do all professionals who actually study life, conclude evolution instead?

Studying evolution is confusing. I need order.

Argument from incredulity.

Quantum physics confuses the heck out of me, but I wouldn't dare using that as an argument to say that QP is nonsense.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I would put that way down on my list of important things.

I know.

Correcting your mistakes and actually learning something, doesn't seem to be one of your priorities...

Most things are what they appear to be.

I gave you 3 examples where that was not the case and I required exactly 2 seconds to come up with them.

psssst: the word "most", excludes it from being a general rule right out the gates.

But hey, you already made it clear that you don't care about being wrong or learning.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He's playing "gotcha". He knows very well what the term means.

No, he's just answering your question.
You just don't like the answer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so this isnt a watch if it has a self replicating system according to your criteria.

(image from https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0667/0685/products/004-1_x500.jpg?v=1513373337)

That thing hasn't got a self-replicating system.

When you find an actual watch that can reproduce biologically, call me.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What you showed a picture of IS a watch, since it shows obviously manufactured parts: leather, plastic, metal, radium.
What you are suggesting would not be a watch. It would be LIKE a watch, but it wouldn't BE a watch.

I disagree. It wouldn't even be like a watch.
There is exactly zero chance that an organism is going to evolve to wrap around the wrist of a human so that that human can tell what time it is.

 

[DogmaHunter]

so if it will made only from wood you will not call it a watch?

Wood in nature takes the form of a tree.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because similarities do not prove common descent.
Either does similar functions.

Would you look at a city of buildings and say they all came from the same building? Of course not. You could say they all have a common design. Such as doors and windows or foundations and the way they are structured so they stand up and not fall down.

Evolution claims that the obvious common design shows common ancestry. It's such a huge leap of logic. It's like saying a foundation to a building is evidence that all buildings came from the same building.

Buildings aren't biological entities that are subject to the processes of biology.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How? Because of similarities?

No. Because of phylogenies that match comparative genetics, anatomy, geographic distribution, the fossil record,...

All you have is similarity and commonality

Nested hierarchies. Aka, a family tree.

Neither of which can be actually shown to lead to common ancestry.

How do you think that biological paternity is established in court cases?
Word against word?
Or is there perhaps some kind of objective genetic test that can be done?

You are making an assumption. You still cannot show it ever happening. You can't test it, observe it or repeat it.

It's extremely testable.