SithDoughnut
The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist
Or the right one. That's where the evidence points so far. It certainly doesn't point to Creationism.
Upvote
0
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.
Perfect. But as I said. One was built in Russia. The other China.
There is no connection between the two teams.
And there is nothing wrong with your analysis.
Your just wrong...that's all.
Same with Evolution.
There's nothing wrong with your analysis of the situation.
Nobody set out to fool you.
It didn't happen the way you think it did.
Some of the evidence points toward an evolutionary leap
where one species changes into another.
Or chemicals congeal to form life.
But it didn't happen that way.
You've just reached the wrong conclusion.
And maybe we are just brains in jars, and everything we see is an illusion. But we have no way of knowing that, and scientific inference seems to be a pretty good way of figuring out the "real world" so far. We're not looking for Truth, we're looking for models consistent with the observations.See, here's the problem. If you and I go to a grave yard, and we dig up people who look more like you than me, It doesn't mean we've just found some of your relatives.
No matter how many graves we open, and no matter how many scientists gasp! at the similarities. No matter how many "peer reviews" approve the methodology. I don't care if your LAST NAME is on the headstones, and I don't care if you have WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION that a SAM SMITH was indeed your great-grandfather.
If you say that SAM SMITH was a sex offender I am NOT going to accuse you of being a descendant based on the bone structure of the corpse. So don't try the "relatives" ploy. Even if I'm motivated to, I won't go there.
Whoda thunk it?And you should have picked up on this by now, New research is subject to trashing over time.
Didn't you say quite the opposite earlier?But I only trust the old research that's been properly shot down.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one.I don't know if it's just me but you seem to be making less and less the more you write. Are you saying that we are all Adam's descendants (therefore all related) but we're not related because genes haven't passed between every single human and every other human in existence?
I am completely lost as what you're trying to say or prove at this point.
Or the right one. That's where the evidence points so far. It certainly doesn't point to Creationism.
Well, water flows downhill, heat flows down hill, organization flows down hill, information flows downhill, society flows down hill, mountains erode, and DNA mutates causing death and disease. Pretty much everything points to a Created world winding down.
Jesus was never excited about the way the world was turning out.
He actively FOUGHT the "Natural processes" of the world at every turn.
His speeches has the opposite effect of Carl Sagan's.
Just a different vantage point from yours.
It's not because the heat "flowed" upstairs, and technically, it's not because heat "rises", either.If Heat flows down hill, why is my house always warmer upstairs than downstairs ?
The "pushing" of transitional fossils can go both ways, and it demonstrably does go the other way sometimes.
Mutations happen, the patient dies. Then they smell."....can you explain how gene duplication constitutes degradation?
"Didn't you say quite the opposite earlier?"
It's not because the heat "flowed" upstairs, and technically, it's not because heat "rises", either.
The heat, or more specifically, "warm air" was "pushed" upstairs by the colder, more dense air settling at the bottom.
I'd never heard that x-planation.
Alright. Then, you're in agreement that it is indeed reasonable and logical that we would've reached this conclusion based on the currently available evidence.
Now, we could be completely wrong, as you say, but how do we check to see if we're, indeed, wrong? After all, as you've pointed out, based on what is verifiably evident, evolution is true.
Well it's backed up by science, ironically.
I read it in a book called, What Einstein Told His Barber ---I'd never heard that x-planation.
DNA gets transferred willy nilly left and right among species. But the changes don't point toward the creation of life, from not.
Mutations happen, the patient dies. Then they smell.
They never put on a cape and become hero's.
We don't even have one example of that.
Occasionally there are two diseased mutants side by side.
One has a more "beneficial mutation" so it doesn't die as fast as the other one.
That's as good a shot as evolutionary mutants ever get. Reality sucks, but at least the view is real.
[/quote]Kinda. If the latest research supports my point, I'll use it to support my views. Because other people think anything printed is "Peer Reviewed" and it tends to dazzel their brains by being "NEW & NOW!" But I've been around the block with Science Folks. They will do what ever they can get away with to make themselves look good. Nobody wants to be an unheard of Science Grunt so I'm only impressed with old, time tested news.
Water flows downhill because of gravity. Are you asserting that an object moving downhill because of gravity indicates a universe 'winding down?'Well, water flows downhill, heat flows down hill, organization flows down hill, information flows downhill, society flows down hill, mountains erode, and DNA mutates causing death and disease. Pretty much everything points to a Created world winding down.
Jesus was never excited about the way the world was turning out.
He actively FOUGHT the "Natural processes" of the world at every turn.
His speeches has the opposite effect of Carl Sagan's.
Just a different vantage point from yours.
If the latest research supports my point, I'll use it to support my views.
From http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.htmlIt's a possible model, useful if it provides predictions that pan out.
Useless for Origins Research....IMHO
The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:
- Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.
- Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was "inexplicable" and that the lack might "be truly urged as a valid argument" against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.
- There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.
- Evolution predicts that we will find fossil series.
- Evolution predicts that the fossil record will show different populations of creatures at different times. For example, it predicts we will never find fossils of trilobites with fossils of dinosaurs, since their geological time-lines don't overlap. The "Cretaceous seaway" deposits in Colorado and Wyoming contain almost 90 different kinds of ammonites, but no one has ever found two different kinds of ammonite together in the same rockbed.
- Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.
- Evolution predicts that features of living things will fit a hierarchical arrangement of relatedness. For example, arthropods all have chitinous exoskeleton, hemocoel, and jointed legs. Insects have all these plus head-thorax-abdomen body plan and 6 legs. Flies have all that plus two wings and halteres. Calypterate flies have all that plus a certain style of antennae, wing veins, and sutures on the face and back. You will never find the distinguishing features of calypterate flies on a non-fly, much less on a non-insect or non-arthropod.
- Evolution predicts that simple, valuable features will evolve independently, and that when they do, they will most likely have differences not relevant to function. For example, the eyes of molluscs, arthropods, and vertebrates are extremely different, and ears can appear on any of at least ten different locations on different insects.
- In 1837, a Creationist reported that during a pig's fetal development, part of the incipient jawbone detaches and becomes the little bones of the middle ear. After Evolution was invented, it was predicted that there would be a transitional fossil, of a reptile with a spare jaw joint right near its ear. A whole series of such fossils has since been found - the cynodont therapsids.
- It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can't tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.
- From my junk DNA example I predict that three specific DNA patterns will be found at 9 specific places in the genome of white-tailed deer, but none of the three patterns will be found anywhere in the spider monkey genome.
- In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil's head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone's astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.
- Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability. (There was a loss-of-function mutation, which didn't matter because our high-fruit diet was rich in Vitamin C.) When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.
- In "The Origin Of Species" (1859), Darwin said:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return. Taking care of other members of one's own species (kin selection) doesn't count, so ants and bees (and mammalian milk) don't count.
Chapter VI, Difficulties Of The Theory - Darwin pointed out that the Madagascar Star orchid has a spur 30 centimeters (about a foot) long, with a puddle of nectar at the bottom. Now, evolution says that nectar isn't free. Creatures that drink it pay for it, by carrying pollen away to another orchid. For that to happen, the creature must rub against the top of the spur. So, Darwin concluded that the spur had evolved its length as an arms race. Some creature had a way to reach deeply without shoving itself hard against the pollen-producing parts. Orchids with longer spurs would be more likely to spread their pollen, so Darwin's gradualistic scenario applied. The spur would evolve to be longer and longer. From the huge size, the creature must have evolved in return, reaching deeper and deeper. So, he predicted in 1862 that Madagascar has a species of hawkmoth with a tongue just slightly shorter than 30 cm. The creature that pollinated that orchid was not learned until 1902, forty years later. It was indeed a moth, and it had a 25 cm tongue. And in 1988 it was proven that moth-pollinated short-spurred orchids did set less seed than long ones.
- A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world's islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.
- The "same" protein in two related species is usually slightly different. A protein is made from a sequence of amino acids, and the two species have slightly different sequences. We can measure the sequences of many species, and cladistics has a mathematical procedure which tells us if these many sequences imply one common ancestral sequence. Evolution predicts that these species are all descended from a common ancestral species, and that the ancestral species used the ancestral sequence. This has been done for pancreatic ribonuclease in ruminants. (Cows, sheep, goats, deer and giraffes are ruminants.) Measurements were made on various ruminants. An ancestral sequence was computed, and protein molecules with that sequence were manufactured. When sequences are chosen at random, we usually wind up with a useless goo. However, the manufactured molecules were biologically active substances. Furthermore, they did exactly what a pancreatic ribonuclease is supposed to do - namely, digest ribonucleic acids.
- An animal's bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature's bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales.
Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins.
It's been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water
From http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/evo_science.html
Is it time to shift the goal posts, again?
I think this little sentence here summarize your whole world view: You believe you're right. You're just looking for the evidence that will back up that belief and will disregard all other evidence.
That's pretty close. I look for the facts that supports my "set in stone" (I have no qualms about that) world view buried in Science news releases, published papers and anywhere else. Then I simply discard the conclusions of most of those efforts. That facts always remain the same but I can see right through the bias in both the intent of the research and the faulty conclusions.
It's a fact illustrated in the two slot experiment that the intent of the observer changes the results. I'm aware of this. The writers of these papers are not. Nor are some of ya'all.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge. - Daniel BoorstinThat's pretty close. I look for research on a huge variety of subjects. I find that all the facts support my "set in stone" (I have no qualms about that) world view. Interesting Science news releases, published Scientific papers, Science Journals, Newspapers, and anywhere else. Then I simply discard the conclusions of most of those efforts. That facts always remain the same but I can see right through the bias in both the intent of the research and the faulty conclusions. This is a real eye opener, because you'll most often find the all facts are missing and only the researchers conclusions are published. This makes it easy to discard what doesn't fit my worldview, because it has the same value as any Op-Ed Page in the newspaper.
It's a fact illustrated in the two slot experiment that the intent of the observer changes the results. I'm aware of this. The writers of these papers are not. Nor are some of ya'all.
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?