More Things to consider

[pshun2404]

We don't need to "see" it. We have evidence for it from the fossil record and genetics.

Actually we have evidence for it from the fossil record and genetics.

Only if you want to fortify the fact that you're defining "faith" in a very strange way.

No you don't. You have the interpretation of those who already believed it (or were taught it as true) and interpret the evidence to support the presupposition it is true. It was not "discovered" to be true. It was already held to be true before there was anything that could be interpreted as supporting it.

The fossil record only shows different organisms coming and going and different varieties arising and disappearing. And genetics which speaks of similarities and differences of the genomes does NOT show one came from the other or even are related in a lineal sense, but these things are way off topic and already discussed in many other threads.

 

[USincognito]

No you don't.

Yes I do.

You have the interpretation of those who already believed it (or were taught it as true) and interpret the evidence to support the presupposition it is true.

I'm sorry, but these magic words won't work on me.

The fossil record only shows different organisms coming and going and different varieties arising and disappearing.

In such a way that exactly matches the genetic evidence.

And genetics which speaks of similarities and differences of the genomes does NOT show one came from the other or even are related in a lineal sense, but these things are way off topic and already discussed in many other threads.

I'm sorry, but genetics literally means different lineages are related.

 

[Speedwell]

It was not "discovered" to be true. It was already held to be true before there was anything that could be interpreted as supporting it.

So Darwin made it all up first and then went to the Galapagos to try and find evidence to support it? That's quite an accusation.

 

[xianghua]

We don't need to "see" it. We have evidence for it from the fossil record and genetics.

so please tell me were all the missing links between 2 pairs of legs and about 30 of this oldest myriapod?:

(image from Introduction to the Myriapoda)

 

[pshun2404]

Yes I do.

I'm sorry, but these magic words won't work on me.

View attachment 219627

In such a way that exactly matches the genetic evidence.

I'm sorry, but genetics literally means different lineages are related.

Genetics is the study of heredity within each type of organism, and yes it does show how genetic similarities cause similarities of form and function within all creatures, but it DOES NOT literally mean that different types of organisms are related in a familial way. Fish never became amphibians and genetics does not evidence this. All living things use the same building blocks.

 

[pshun2404]

So Darwin made it all up first and then went to the Galapagos to try and find evidence to support it? That's quite an accusation.

Putting words in my mouth, heh? Maybe that will convince some! The Galapagos finches only prove what I said (variety via speciation).

 

[USincognito]

Genetics is the study of heredity within each type of organism, and yes it does show how genetic similarities cause similarities of form and function within all creatures, but it DOES NOT literally mean that different types of organisms are related in a familial way. All living things use the same building blocks.

I'm sorry, but no. It literally does show relatedness. That's how genetics works.

Fish never became amphibians and genetics does not evidence this.

Again, I'm sorry. You can deny the evidence, but it won't make the evidence go away. Analysis of globin genes alone is enough to show that modern vertebrates (including amphibians) evolved from jawless fish).
2005
Two Rounds of Whole Genome Duplication in the Ancestral Vertebrate
2007
α D -Globin Gene Originated via Duplication of an Embryonic α-Like Globin Gene in the Ancestor of Tetrapod Vertebrates | Molecular Biology and Evolution | Oxford Academic
2011
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/10/04/molbev.msr207.short
2013
Gene duplication, genome duplication, and the functional diversification of vertebrate globins - ScienceDirect

All living things use the same building blocks.

Yes. Because they're all related. Of course if you want to assert "common design", then you need have a whole litany of other problems like:
- it's an ad hoc argument
- it's unfalsifiable and thus not scientific
- it doesn't explain why humans and chimpanzees share 203,000 ERVs
- it doesn't explain why all haplorhine primates, including humans, share a broken GULO gene
- it doesn't explain why whales have a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway
- it doesn't explain why all therian mammals, including humans, have broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Galapagos finches only prove what I said (variety via speciation).

Correct - variety via speciation is evolution.

 

[xianghua]

- it doesn't explain why whales have a non-functioning Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 gene pathway

probably because it has a vestigial flipper (we found a dolphin with extra pair of flippers). but this isnt evidence for a common descent, just for degeneration. see how easy it is to explain biology without evolution?

 

[xianghua]

--

 

[Speedwell]

Putting words in my mouth, heh? Maybe that will convince some! The Galapagos finches only prove what I said (variety via speciation).

I don't need to put words in your mouth. You do that for me. You said,

"It was not "discovered" to be true. It was already held to be true before there was anything that could be interpreted as supporting it."

That claims clearly and explicitly that the theory of evolution was formulated before any observations were made. You also called it a "lie" and the subject of "indoctrination" but have not justified those slanderous falsehoods, either.

 

[HitchSlap]

Genetics is the study of heredity within each type of organism, and yes it does show how genetic similarities cause similarities of form and function within all creatures, but it DOES NOT literally mean that different types of organisms are related in a familial way. Fish never became amphibians and genetics does not evidence this. All living things use the same building blocks.

Why not?

 

[Skreeper]

probably because it has a vestigial flipper (we found a dolphin with extra pair of flippers). but this isnt evidence for a common descent, just for degeneration. see how easy it is to explain biology without evolution?

It may seem easy for people who don't know what they're talking about.

 

[xianghua]

It may seem easy for people who don't know what they're talking about.

so we have no evidence that dolphin has an extra flippers?

 

[Speedwell]

The fossil record only shows different organisms coming and going and different varieties arising and disappearing.

Quite right. That is all that the fossil record is expected to show. That, and if you arrange the fossils in chronological order some of them appear to form a developmental sequence. But that's all. You were right about Darwin's finches and what they showed, too.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If such an intelligence exists it did so by making laws and using principles that govern all natural processes. Natural processes are the intent, the how, they do not account for the why or the who if there is such a being. This intelligence would have created the laws of chemistry and physics to assure the final product. All matter/energy must follow and conform to these laws and principles...it has no choice (and like any well defined or governed system there are occasional exceptions to the rule).

Sounds like your designer is the entity that kick starts the universe, setting up the initial conditions and then sits back and watch it unfold for at least 13.7 billion years.

Is that correct?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So if I burry one in your front yard, you will be stunned?
My crew is quite good at this.

Where did the tree stump come from, if not from a thing that was a full tree at some point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

For 100os of years people had faith that all matter was comprised of small building blocks (as you do) which cannot be seen. You have faith in a universal common ancestor you have not seen. You have faith that somehow somewhere fish became amphibians (but have never seen this). You have faith that there must be life on other planets (but do not see this). You never SAW the love your mother had/has for you but you have faith that she does because of your experience.... Shall I go on?

Here's an exercise for you.

Consider the following two instances of "faith":
1. I have faith that this boeing 747 will get me safely to my destination
2. I have faith that Allah will reward me with 70 virgins if I die as a martyr fighting for the cause of Islam

Please explain the difference between these two types of "faith".
Are both equally rational?
Are both equally justified?
Are both the same type of faith?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I can show you the designer, Jesus Christ.

If God created the universe with an inbuilt age, then He did that for a reason. Perhaps He gave you exactly what you were after.

One cannot say that any process or event is a natural process, unless one knows for certain that a natural event can occur.

I have found it wiser to never assume anything, our knowledge is very limited.

Your last sentence, is in direct contradiction with your first sentence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

see how easy it is to explain biology without evolution?

Especially when you get to argue from a position of sheer ignorance on the topic and while using imaginary data.