If there is "no evidence" for evolution...

[pitabread]

so you call a scientific paper "garbage?". if so we can say the same for any scientific paper about evolution. see how easy it is?

I notice you snipped out the following sentences where I explained why I think that paper is garbage. The paper does not demonstrate what it claims (namely evidence of design in birds). Again, I've read through it several times and even engaged in discussion here with people about it in the past. So I'm not merely dismissing it out of hand, I'm dismissing it based directly on its content.

You're more than welcome to read it yourself. But you won't find any evidence for design within its pages.

as i said: according to that definition even if human will stay as human for a billion years you will still call it evolution. this is what you want to argue? fine.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling you what the Theory of Evolution *is*. There's no debate here. If you want to reject what the Theory of Evolution pertains to and how the process of biological evolution is defined, that's your call.

But you're not going to get anywhere with that. You might as well be arguing about whether the sky is blue for all the good it will do.

by the way; according to berkeley site the definition of evolution also include common descent:

The Theory of Evolution encompasses common descent, yes. But it also includes the basic process of evolution which occurs within gene pools from one generation to the next.

Again, this isn't up for debate. This is what evolution is.

and i already told you that variations of evolution theory are still kind of evolution. so we still have 2 possibilities: creation or evolution.

Clearly we're at an impasse. You want to lump everything into only two categories. Whereas I see the individual options as being more granular than that.

sure. we can start with this : Michael Behe, “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” pp. 352-370 (you can find it as a pdf file).

I'd say irreducible complexity has already been well covered with you in prior discussions. Suffice to say irreducible complex has been long demonstrated to neither be evidence of design nor is it synonymous with "unevolvable".

(It's also worth noting that Michael Behe, author of that paper, accepts common descent.)

we can say the same about any paper about evolution.

Not based on reading them, you can't.

 

[Speedwell]

No doubt; rituals can exert a very powerful influence, particularly reassuring - that's why they're ubiquitous in human culture. But it seems daft to continue to maintain the magic is real when it demonstrably isn't.

It may be daft, but it is not outrageous, as such things go, to imagine that Christ is somehow present. You are ritually eating the bread that Jesus gave his followers. Was He not somehow present in that bread? But it takes some training to get it, like many other religious practices--meditation, for example--and I am sad to say that many don't get it. They just take it like a magic pill

Obfuscation, opacity, and handwaving aren't strictly 'technical explanations' - one might as well double down and say that the evidence that it isn't magic shows that it really must be magic...

It is quite common slang amongst my RC friends to refer to Mass as "the magic show."

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so you dont believe in evolution then.

Sure I do. As you would know (if you actually understand Evolution), once something is a thing, it stays that thing. As in your example, we are Human and all our descendants will be Human, no matter how divergent and unique our various ancestors become. Just as we will always be Apes, and Mammals, and Synapsids, and Placentals, and Tetrapods, and Vertibrates, and Chordates, and Animals, and Eukaryotes. (I might've messed up that order a little, shooting from the hip right now...) We don't ever escape the hereditary tree of life and jump to some other branch - for example, we'll never become Felines, or Rodents, or Birds, etc.

Out of curiosity, what's your understanding of what we'll become in a billion years? and for reference, what do you think Dogs will become in the same time - do you believe they could become Giraffes for example? curious...

what are you talking about? those are peer review articles. the "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics" jornal is a peer review jornal and behe article was published by cambridge university press in 2004. this is simply incorrect.

I've looked and can't find your "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics" journal on any peer reviewed scientific journals database anywhere, perhaps it goes by a different name? Maybe you have a look and let me know: https://www.omicsonline.org/scientific-journals.php - I couldn't find it. Much like that other Journal quoted ad-nauseum by Discovery Institute (you know, the one they fund through a shell fund called Biologic Institute?), the Bio-Complexity journal. it seems neither are peer-reviewed by scientists actually practising in the field...

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Says you. You deem it accident and we are to see that as fact? You do that a lot.

Weird sayings don't further your cause.

But something you see as evidence, is far from proof of evolution. The question was styled as it was in order to get a certain response, and you not answering the question, as it was written, makes me think you have no answer to the exact question. Am I correct?

If the challenge is to provide proof you will accept, of course it cannot be done. We can only present reasonable proof.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It may be daft, but it is not outrageous, as such things go, to imagine that Christ is somehow present. You are ritually eating the bread that Jesus gave his followers. Was He not somehow present in that bread?

I wouldn't criticise the ritual symbolism of the bread representing, or being infused with, the spirit or essence or whatever; it's the insistence on a literal physical transformation to flesh that I find absurd.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I've looked and can't find your "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics" journal on any peer reviewed scientific journals database anywhere, perhaps it goes by a different name?
...
it seems neither are peer-reviewed by scientists actually practising in the field...

Quite. You won't be surprised to hear that the rag features papers by a YEC who is on the editorial board of the publisher, WIT Press Journals. See I'm Evolving As Fast As I Can!

 

[AV1611VET]

It's been done:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume it was not done by Speedwell though.

To his credit, he may have been too busy telling us to look into our doctrine to care about his own.

I don't know.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume it was not done by Speedwell though.

To his credit, he may have been too busy telling us to look into our doctrine to care about his own.

I don't know.

It doesn't matter. The result was what was expected and cosnstent with Traditional Christian doctrine.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It doesn't matter. The result was what was expected and cosnstent with Traditional Christian doctrine.

In my church we have always said the bread and the wine are merely symbols for what Christ did for us. We do it in remembrance of His actual sacrifice on our behalf.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Same here, but it's not beyond me to make something up, just to see them deny it.

There may be a place for you in the current administration of our nation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

At the time I didn't realize that I was engaged in an attempt to trick you; I thought I was just idscussing a routine matter so I was not as precise in my writing as I should have been. You can put the "apparently" in or leave it out; I don't care.

I'll leave it where you put it...where it belongs..

 

[Kenny'sID]

Weird sayings don't further your cause.

I have no idea what that means? Almost sounds like a weird saying.

If the challenge is to provide proof you will accept, of course it cannot be done. We can only present reasonable proof.

And the question remains, when? I haven't heard any proof at all, but I know, that is somehow my fault.

 

[Jimmy D]

I have no idea what that means? Almost sounds like a weird saying.



And the question remains, when? I haven't heard any proof at all, but I know, that is somehow my fault.

Well, you can't blame your ignorance on other people now can you?

I have wonder why you still use the term "proof" after the amount of times it's been explained to you? I wonder exactly what would constitute "proof" to you anyway, maybe you could help us out a bit?

 

[xianghua]

I notice you snipped out the following sentences where I explained why I think that paper is garbage. The paper does not demonstrate what it claims (namely evidence of design in birds).

again: i can say the same about papers who deal with evolution and their content.

I'm not arguing anything. I'm telling you what the Theory of Evolution *is*. There's no debate here.

if this is realy the definition then why credible source like berkeley also include common descent? in this case they just need to talk about variation over time and not common descent. but they didnt.

I'd say irreducible complexity has already been well covered with you in prior discussions.

he also mention motors like the flagellum. and motors are of course evidence for design.

 

[xianghua]

Sure I do. As you would know (if you actually understand Evolution), once something is a thing, it stays that thing.

so human is still an rna molecule? or a fish? and mammals are still reptiles?

I've looked and can't find your "International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics" journal on any peer reviewed scientific journals database anywhere

check here under "submissions":

https://www.witpress.com/journals/dne

 

[Kenny'sID]

Well, you can't blame your ignorance on other people now can you?

I have wonder why you still use the term "proof" after the amount of times it's been explained to you? I wonder exactly what would constitute "proof" to you anyway, maybe you could help us out a bit?

Don't do that Jimmy...see how you twisted that to be something completely different? Whatever it takes, eh?

Just for you and Paul of Eugene OR, here is the comment that was supposed to be "weird", now tell me what your post had to do with that? Actually, I'd like to know how the comment was weird to begin with.

Says you. You deem it accident and we are to see that as fact? You do that a lot.

You all really need to wait till there is something to pounce on before you do so.

Explained to me? Not true. At least crack your eyelids enough to see whenever I ask the question, prove it, exactly what happens. Why would you do that to yourself, I mean say something that is splattered all, over this thread as untrue?

Would you like to summarize proof positive evolution is fact, and how that proof makes it fact? And I mean right here on this thread where it can be discussed, and so our time is not wasted with links that you believe prove it, and will likely be a waste of time for some of us.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so human is still an rna molecule? or a fish? and mammals are still reptiles?

Humans are a subset of fish, sure. We derive from them. Same with Mammals being a subset or Reptiles, Synapsids in particular. We are derivatives of everything that we descended from.

check here under "submissions":

https://www.witpress.com/journals/dne

Not sure what I'm supposed to be seeing, this still isn't on any legitimate database of reputable scientific peer reviewed journals.

 

[AV1611VET]

Humans are a subset of fish, sure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't academia used to teach that an embryo went through three stages in the womb: first negroid, then mongoloid, then caucasoid?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't academia used to teach that an embryo went through three stages in the womb: first negroid, then mongoloid, then caucasoid?

I've never heard that, do you have a reference?

 

[AV1611VET]

I've never heard that, do you have a reference?

Yes ... and I'd rather not say.

Google doesn't seem to want to mention anything about it.