Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
We're not talking about common features of phenotype, but about damaged genes and their distribution.
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?
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.Were the genes damaged from the start or did they become damaged?
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Studying anatomy confirms design.
Studying evolution is confusing. I need order.
I would put that way down on my list of important things.
Most things are what they appear to be.
He's playing "gotcha". He knows very well what the term means.
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)
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.
so if it will made only from wood you will not call it a watch?
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.
How? Because of similarities?
All you have is similarity and commonality
Neither of which can be actually shown to lead to common ancestry.
You are making an assumption. You still cannot show it ever happening. You can't test it, observe it or repeat it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?