Is Creationism a Fairy Tale?

[lasthero]

So obviously evolution is the same as crime, figures.

In the sense that they're both things that happen in the past that we can't see happening right before our eyes but still make judgments on using evidence...yes.

 

[Theodor1]

So obviously evolution is the same as crime, figures.

Actually the science they use to fight crime is a lot more advanced then the science they use for evolution. Because ALL of their evidence has to stand up in a court of law.

 

[lasthero]

Actually the science they use to fight crime is a lot more advanced then the science they use for evolution.

No, it's not.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Actually the science they use to fight crime is a lot more advanced then the science they use for evolution. Because ALL of their evidence has to stand up in a court of law.

plus of course real crime cannot be circumstantial evidence.

 

[lasthero]

plus of course real crime cannot be circumstantial evidence.

Not true. Circumstantial evidence can accumulate to the point where it corroborates and supports a conclusion. For instance, if someone saw you enter a house with a knife, heard a scream, then saw you leave with a bloody knife, and we found a knife in your house that matched the description, and we found your boot prints in the house of the victim, and you had a history of threats to the victim...this would all be circumstantial. But it's safe to that a jury would find it strong evidence pointing to your guilt, and you would be hard pressed to refute it.

Most evidence is circumstantial. Most criminals try to hide what they do. If we could convict people on circumstantial evidence, more often than not, criminals would go free.

 

[EternalDragon]

Not true. Circumstantial evidence can accumulate to the point where it corroborates and supports a conclusion. For instance, if someone saw you enter a house with a knife, heard a scream, then saw you leave with a bloody knife, and we found a knife in your house that matched the description, and we found your boot prints in the house of the victim, and you had a history of threats to the victim...this would all be circumstantial. But it's safe to that a jury would find it strong evidence pointing to your guilt, and you would be hard pressed to refute it.

Most evidence is circumstantial. Most criminals try to hide what they do. If we could convict people on circumstantial evidence, more often than not, criminals would go free.

Evolutionary evidence is not near as strong as that and no one saw it happen either. So eliminate the eyewitness, the scream, and advance most of the evidence to millions of years old. Then you are down to only speculative guesses.

 

[lasthero]

Evolutionary evidence is not near as strong as that and no one saw it happen either

It's every bit as strong. It's supported by evidence in multiple fields and back by decades of research by scientists all over the world and from every walk of life. It makes predictions that are verifiable and has applications. The weight of the evidence is in it's favor.

Then you are down to only speculative guesses.

It's more than a guess, and no matter how deep you stick your head in the sand, it remains as such.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Not true. Circumstantial evidence can accumulate to the point where it corroborates and supports a conclusion. For instance, if someone saw you enter a house with a knife, heard a scream, then saw you leave with a bloody knife, and we found a knife in your house that matched the description, and we found your boot prints in the house of the victim, and you had a history of threats to the victim...this would all be circumstantial. But it's safe to that a jury would find it strong evidence pointing to your guilt, and you would be hard pressed to refute it.

Most evidence is circumstantial. Most criminals try to hide what they do. If we could convict people on circumstantial evidence, more often than not, criminals would go free.

I think that example would far exceed circumstantial. Circumstantial means that there is a likely alternative which could have happened. If someone saw me, with the weapon, the exact matching weapon was found in my house with blood on it, plus boots with mud that matched footprints at the victims home, THAT is hardly circumstantial. What viable alternative is there? someone wore my boots, took my knife then brought them back? yet I didn't notice the mud on my boots and blood on my knife? hardly.

 

[nuttypiglet]

In the sense that they're both things that happen in the past that we can't see happening right before our eyes but still make judgments on using evidence...yes.

So are you saying that no crime is observed?

 

[lasthero]

Circumstantial means that there is a likely alternative which could have happened. If someone saw me, with the weapon, the exact matching weapon was found in my house with blood on it, plus boots with mud that matched footprints at the victims home, THAT is hardly circumstantial

No, it's still circumstantial. No one saw you do the crime. That's what makes it circumstan

 

[lasthero]

Circumstantial means that there is a likely alternative which could have happened. If someone saw me, with the weapon, the exact matching weapon was found in my house with blood on it, plus boots with mud that matched footprints at the victims home, THAT is hardly circumstantial

No, it's still circumstantial. No one saw you do the crime. That's what makes it circumstantial.

What viable alternative is there? someone wore my boots, took my knife then brought them back? yet I didn't notice the mud on my boots and blood on my knife? hardly.

There is such a thing as being set up, yeah. It's possible whoever set you up just cleaned the knife and boots, then put them back.

 

[lasthero]

Wt

 

[OllieFranz]

I think that example would far exceed circumstantial. Circumstantial means that there is a likely alternative which could have happened.

No, circumstantial evidence is evidence to the circumstances surrounding the crime, but not of the crime itself. Direct evidence would be an eyewitness to the actual stabbing, or a camera recording of it. Everything else is circumstantial. It corroborates the direct evidence, but no one piece of it alone is enough to "prove" the case. Enough different circumstantial evidence can add up, though, and can be enough to "prove" the case, at least beyond a reasonable doubt.

If someone saw me, with the weapon, the exact matching weapon was found in my house with blood on it, plus boots with mud that matched footprints at the victims home, THAT is hardly circumstantial.

Yes it is. No one saw you actually stab the victim. They can only testify to things that happened before or after the stabbing.

What viable alternative is there? someone wore my boots, took my knife then brought them back? yet I didn't notice the mud on my boots and blood on my knife? hardly.

Exactly! There is always doubt, since no one saw you stab the victim, but the circumstantial evidence that has to be explained away is so great that that doubt is not "reasonable." It is the same with the evidence for common origin. For evolution in general, there is direct evidence for ongoing evolution, including speciation.

 

[lasthero]

So are you saying that no crime is observed?

Most aren't.

Also, I just realized - my example mentioned nothing about finding a bloody knife or boots. Why did you add that in?

 

[USincognito]

The article did not say mutations produce new characteristics. That is what this discussion is about.

Since characteristics (phenotype) are expressions of genes (genotype) changes in the latter will axiomatically result in changes to the former. Some of those will be novel changes.

 

[USincognito]

I think sperm and ova in humans are produced at the age of around 11-14, so where does the DNA get stored for this until that time? Or does the body select a specific cell type and take the DNA from there?

Baby girls are born with all the eggs they will ever possess in their lifetime. Tween testes begin sperm production in that approximate timeframe.

 

[USincognito]

So are you saying that no crime is observed?

So's Law - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%.

 

[mzungu]

Please stop saying this without fuller context of populations, etc. The Taung child is a perfect transitional fossil between our LCA with chimps and genus Homo. Since it died long before it was able to reproduce, it never transitioned into anything other than a fossil. The Au. africanus population, however, did continue to transition into genus Homo and eventually into sapiens.

Extinction of a species does in no way means it was not transitional. So long as mutations occur then suffice it to say that all life is in a transitional state. Given time and the ability to survive a changing environment then any species will transition.

ToE would not be possible were this not to be true.

 

[JWGU]

Extinction of a species does in no way means it was not transitional. So long as mutations occur then suffice it to say that all life is in a transitional state. Given time and the ability to survive a changing environment then any species will transition.

ToE would not be possible were this not to be true.

Sure, but if a species goes extinct without any of its members having transitioned into a new species, it can certainly be said not to have been transitional. This is true even under the interpretation of species as a mere label and the question being biologically meaningless.

 

[mzungu]

Sure, but if a species goes extinct without any of its members having transitioned into a new species, it can certainly be said not to have been transitional. This is true even under the interpretation of species as a mere label and the question being biologically meaningless.

True but the fact that mutations occur in all life forms then they (life forms) are in a state of transition.