Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

Your rejection of the theory is based on much speculation instead of actual evidence. "I don't believe . . ." is mere speculation.

The fact of the matter is that these fossils have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features. That makes them transitional by definition. This isn't speculation. Also, we have mountains of genetic evidence that demonstrates chimps and humans share a common ancestor. I have a thread on that very subject if you are interested:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/



These aren't speculations:

Yes they are speculating, and they actually don't understand where humans came from.

 

[Poster0]

Evolutionists speculated that the appendix was a useless organ, a leftover from the evolution process. However they were later proved to be wrong. They also speculated that Humans had junk DNA, but later they found out that this DNA has a purpose and was not junk. Yet, evolutionists will not admit that human evolution theory is built on speculation instead of actual science.

 

[Loudmouth]

And how did they determine that these fossils were human ancestors?

We don't. We determine what features they have. If they have a mixture of features from earlier apes and modern humans then they are transitional and evidence that humans evolved from earlier apes.

They could easily just be fossils from chimps or apes, but that doesn't mean that its a fossil of a creature who eventually evolved into man.

However, it is evidence that humans did evolve from earlier apes.

Also how do they calculate the fossils age? They are using flawed techniques and much speculation as well. It seems unwise to blindly accept these findings as truth, because there is no real evidence, only speculation.

You seem to sling these accusations around without much to back them. What speculations are they using?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes they are speculating, and they actually don't understand where humans came from.

How is it speculation? We have both fossil and genetic evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists speculated that the appendix was a useless organ, a leftover from the evolution process. However they were later proved to be wrong. They also speculated that Humans had junk DNA, but later they found out that this DNA has a purpose and was not junk. Yet, evolutionists will not admit that human evolution theory is built on speculation instead of actual science.

They speculated that the appendix is vestigial, not useless. It helps if you use the correct term. Vestigial organs can still have rudimentary function.

Also, about 90% of the human genome is still considered junk DNA. There is a lack of negative selection in 90% of the genome which indicates that it has no selectable function.

 

[Poster0]

How is it speculation? We have both fossil and genetic evidence.

They don't understand the genetic evidence they are looking at. They are only speculating. just as they did concerning the human appendix and the so called junk DNA

 

[bhsmte]

They don't understand the genetic evidence they are looking at. They are only speculating. just as they did concerning the human appendix and the so called junk DNA

What are your credentials, in regards to understanding genetics?

 

[Poster0]

They speculated that the appendix is vestigial, not useless. It helps if you use the correct term. Vestigial organs can still have rudimentary function.

Also, about 90% of the human genome is still considered junk DNA. There is a lack of negative selection in 90% of the genome which indicates that it has no selectable function.

Yes, I would expect you to rationalize their fallacy. That has been the case since the beginning of this Evolution Theory. I have observed that Evolution theory itself is actually evolving, and instead of admitting their fallacy they simply try to rationalize it. Their behavior is observable, unlike the findings of the theory itself. So I scientifically conclude that ToS is not built on pure science, nor logic or reasoning, but instead is built on mere speculation and unscientific reasoning.

 

[Loudmouth]

They don't understand the genetic evidence they are looking at. They are only speculating. just as they did concerning the human appendix and the so called junk DNA

The human appendix does not digest cellulose and 90% of the human genome is still junk DNA. Scientists are right about both of them.

Now, please explain how scientists are misunderstanding the pattern and orthology of endogenous retroviruses in the human and chimp genomes. I am all ears.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I would expect you to rationalize their fallacy. That has been the case since the beginning of this Evolution Theory. I have observed that Evolution theory itself is actually evolving, and this is observable, unlike the findings of the theory itself.

What fallacy?

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, I would expect you to rationalize their fallacy. That has been the case since the beginning of this Evolution Theory. I have observed that Evolution theory itself is actually evolving, and instead of admitting their fallacy they simply try to rationalize it. Their behavior is observable, unlike the findings of the theory itself. So I scientifically conclude that ToS is not built on logic nor reasoning, but mere speculation and unscientific reasoning.

The basic premise of evolution by natural selection remains at the center, and solid.

 

[Poster0]

What are your credentials, in regards to understanding genetics?

I don't need credentials to see human fallacy. Are you aware that in the beginning stages of DNA testing, that is was far from perfect? They used it in criminal forensic science yet their data was flawed and they convicted innocent people with their fallacy. They said DNA couldn't lie, and they were right, but it was human fallacy that lied. They also used other flawed forensic data to convict innocent people as well. They used eye witness testimony which is actually among the most untrustworthy evidence that can be used, despite popular belief. THey also used blood type evidence to convict people, yet that is fallacy as well. Human fallacy is what I am judging.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't need credentials to see human fallacy. Are you aware that in the beginning stages of DNA testing, that is was far from perfect? They used it in criminal forensic science yet their data was flawed and they convicted innocent people with their fallacy. They said DNA couldn't lie, and they were right, but it was human fallacy that lied. They use to use other flawed forensic data to convict innocent people as well. They used eye witness testimony which is actually among the most untrustworthy evidence that can be used, despite popular belief. THey also used blood type to convict people, yet that is fallacy as well. Human fallacy is what I am judging.

DNA sequencing is pretty accurate now, and we have both the human and chimp genomes sequenced using solid methodologies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409860a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04072.html

Those papers used pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing which is different from the PCR based STR analyses done for DNA fingerprinting. However, I'm guessing you don't know anything about DNA sequencing. You just disagree because you don't like the conclusions.

Also, I am still waiting for you to tell us what this fallacy is.

 

[Poster0]

The basic premise of evolution by natural selection remains at the center, and solid.

If I understand it correctly, I would agree. This is because its actually observable and logical. Most people would agree with it, its not hard to imagine at all. This however is not the case with the theory surrounding the origin of man.

 

[durangodawood]

...You just disagree because you don't like the conclusions...

At some point you have to quit arguing with people who have decided to protect a particular personal theological commitment at ALL costs.

 

[Loudmouth]

If I understand it correctly, I would agree. This is because its actually observable and logical. Most people would agree with it, its not hard to imagine at all. This however is not the case with the theory surrounding the origin of man.

How so?

 

[Poster0]

DNA sequencing is pretty accurate now, and we have both the human and chimp genomes sequenced using solid methodologies.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/abs/409860a0.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v437/n7055/abs/nature04072.html

Those papers used pyrosequencing and Sanger sequencing which is different from the PCR based STR analyses done for DNA fingerprinting. However, I'm guessing you don't know anything about DNA sequencing. You just disagree because you don't like the conclusions.

Also, I am still waiting for you to tell us what this fallacy is.

I understand a little about it, I love to learn about forensic science. With all due respect, their understanding of DNA is still in the dark ages. The fallacy I'm referring to is the human fallacy which has been observed throughout history, and in modern days as well.. If you think that ToE is flawless and is proven, then you are ignoring history and logic. ITs more rational to assume that ToE theory is flawed and untrustworthy, rather than to blindly accept it as fact.

 

[Poster0]

At some point you have to quit arguing with people who have decided to protect a particular personal theological commitment at ALL costs.

No, I'm simply following science. I'm following observable data, not speculation. I would suggest that its you who may be trying to protect a theological commitment at all costs.

 

[Loudmouth]

I understand a little about it, I love to learn about forensic science. With all due respect, their understanding of DNA is still in the dark ages.

You don't understand DNA sequencing, but you are sure that all of the world's expert geneticists and molecular biologists are wrong. Do I have that right?

The fallacy I'm referring to is the human fallacy which has been observed throughout history, and in modern days as well..

What is that fallacy?

If you think that ToE is flawless and is proven, then you are ignoring history and logic. ITs more rational to assume that ToE theory is flawed and untrustworthy, rather than to blindly accept it as fact.

I don't blindly accept it. I have followed the evidence.

It would appear that you ignore the evidence because you don't like where it leads.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Saying that the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust is like saying that the theory of gravity was the moral underpinning for terrorists making airplanes crash.

No, because it was the absence of morality in evolution which made them feel justified. The were the fittest, master race, and killing others was just nature.