Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[USincognito]

So your basic argument is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You do know that doesn't apply to biological systems, only to physics?

I use this meme on Facebook.

 

[rjs330]

Indeed.

Here is the Biblical definition of "kind":

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

Yes that further narrows the definition and I have noticed that but didn't include it. Well done.

 

[USincognito]

Pixie dust. Just like the oort cloud and dark matter and dark energy.
We killed the dinosaurs. Like many other large carnivores.

Ooops.
http://www.nature.com/news/dwarf-planet-stretches-solar-system-s-edge-1.14921

 

[USincognito]

If they can't get past first using fruit flies, they will never get
proof of evolution.

Why are you guys having such trouble comprehending that there is not such thing as scientific proof?
---------------------------------------------

No such thing as scientific proof.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.

Dr. Jay Wile, Creationist
http://blog.drwile.com/?p=5725

After all, science has proven all sorts of things, hasn’t it?

Of course it hasn’t. In fact, it is impossible for science to prove anything, because science is based on experiments and observations, both of which can be flawed. Often, those flaws don’t become apparent to the scientific community for quite some time. Flawed experiments and observations, of course, lead to flawed conclusions, so even the most secure scientific statements have never been proven. There might be gobs and gobs of evidence for them, but they have not been proven.


Dr. Douglas Theobald, not a Creationist
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

 

[USincognito]

Bad argument. Adding energy randomly only makes things worse.
There is no way to get Hulk or the F4 by adding radiation. That only
gives cancer, health problems, sterility and death.

Of course it seems like a bad argument to you. You don't know what you're talking about as the section in blue demonstrates.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No such thing as scientific proof.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...sconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.

COoL

Proofs seem to appear or disappear/ go POoF! gone, depending on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.......

 

[USincognito]

Been there, seen them. All they prove is degeneration
of DNA and adaptation within a kind.

The part in blue makes me think you're lying about the part in red.

 

[USincognito]

COoL

Proofs seem to appear or disappear/ go POoF! gone, depending on $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.......

One day one of my little nephews came up to me and asked me if the equator was
a real line that went around the Earth, or just an imaginary one. I had to
laugh. Laugh and laugh. Because I didn't know, and I thought that maybe by
laughing he would forget what he asked me. -- Deep Thoughts, by Jack Handey

 

[klutedavid]

Hello TM.

Thanks for your reply.

The laws of physics are, after all, deterministic.

That's seems to be the way that science understands it.

This means that if all paramaters are identical, yes, the result will be the same.

Hopefully this is true, though not sure whether this is true in quantum physics.

However, we're talking so vastly many parameters, that it is completely absurd
to assume that in all the thousands of ERV insertions in humans and other primates, all
these parameters were the same.

Not sure how you can differentiate between randomness and determinism here.

Even under controller conditions in the lab, science hasn't been succesfull in
finding patterns in ERV insertions.

Hope your not going to draw any conclusion without the evidence. So what if science
cannot identify any predetermined cause, this does not allow any conclusion.

Situations don't get more identical then under controlled conditions in a lab.

We are discussing whether an event is a random event, not whether science is able
to conclude whether the event is determined or not.

It can in theory. In practice, it is another matter.

This is what I have been talking about TM, the vast distinction between theory and real
world applications.

You don't have any control over circumstantial parameters. The parameters
themselves are also dependend upon other parameters, which in turn are also dependend
upon other parameters and so on and so on.

We are back on track now, causation, determinism.

There comes a point where it's safe to say that outcomes are determined by so
much circumstantial data, that it becomes unpredictable. And it's perfectly ok to call
that "random".

Catastrophic failure in your argument.

You have drawn a relationship between two separate ideas, randomness and prediction.

Here is an example that should illustrate the relationship that you have imposed.

In ancient times, the sex of an unborn child was unknown, i.e., not predictable.

In modern times, the sex of an unborn child can be known, i.e., predictable.

Does this then mean that the sex of the unborn child in ancient times was a random event?

Randomness is not related to whether the outcome of an event is predictable or not.

If we cannot predict the outcome of an event, this does not imply that the event is a random
event. The event could be a determined event with too many variables, the outcome of this
event is unpredictable.

Your confusing the idea of a random event, with the unrelated prediction of the outcome
of an event. It is not 'ok' to link these two ideas, a random event and a prediction of the
outcome of an event.

But, again, it is beyond absurd to assume that in all the thousands of instances of ERV insertions in humans and chimps, all those parameters were identical.

More about causation, determinism, and randomness.

Beyond absurd.

The relationship between a random event and prediction was an absurd
relationship.

 

[USincognito]

Answered already I think. No one has ever "proven" the lie of evolution - it has always been fabricated and followed with more fabrication.

Creationists sure are long on hyperbolic, yet vacuous, rhetoric. They never seem to be able to actually address the evidence though.

 

[Commander]

Here is some evidence in stone/rock. Now, how long does it take to form rock.

 

[Commander]

Or here is live evidence and evidence in stone:

 

[Commander]

Here is more evidence alive and in stone:

 

[Commander]

Momma always said a picture is worth a thousand words:

 

[USincognito]

Here is some evidence in stone/rock. Now, how long does it take to form rock.

Depends on the rock. A concretion can form in weeks. Do you have any details about those photos? Or did you just lift them from a Creationist website?

 

[Commander]

Yeah we address the evidence, we just don't see billions of years!

 

[Commander]

@USincognito Still can't debunk the fact that they are here, can you!

 

[klutedavid]

Hello TM.

Appreciate your reply.

Here's a nice pattern identified by science in living things: nested hierarchies.

That is a theoretical construction which may or may not, reflect the observed reality.

DNA provides enough paint for the canvas.

We all can have our own opinion.

Fossils merely fit the painting.

Not sure whether the fossils will fit any painting we paint.

Finding a fossil that does NOT fit the painting, is something that simply doesn't happen.

Fossils are found with no observable ancestry, a hole in the painting.

Every fossil ever found is consistent with the model of evolution.

The fossil record is not linear and simple to understand, the fossil record contains
abrupt appearances of species. The fossil record record also contains abrupt extinctions.
There are innumerable absences of species in the fossil record also.

Since fossilization is rare, as you acknowledge, it isn't surprising at all to see
"sudden appearances" in the fossil record.

This is also the problem with trying to understand the fossil record.

What would be surprising, is to find a fossil that doesn't fit the model.
But that just doesn't happen.

Sudden appearances of species has always been the problem.

Yep. And those date to a time where there were (at least) landbridges between
those continents. Exactly as we would expect.

The terrestrial environment in deeper time is almost impossible to explain.
This is a highly theoretical domain.

 

[Commander]

If humans evolved from monkey's why are there human bones and artifacts found in every evolutionary column? Because the geologic column is fallacy and so is it a fallacy that humans evolved from monkey's.

 

[klutedavid]

Have primates remained unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?

Hello Astrophile.

Impossible to draw any definite conclusion, given that controversy usually surrounds any
proposed ancestor of man. For example, does Lucy belong in the ancestry of man?

I read an article, describing how Lucy might have fallen from a height of 40 feet to
the ground. Apparently there were fractures in the bones of Lucy which indicated
this cause of death. A tree dwelling primate.

How would we ever know for certain, whether we have a common ancestry with the
primate family?