My Daisy Chain Challenge

[Loudmouth]

Then his video fails my challenge, doesn't it?

Your challenge fails.

I've allotted one inch of space for each piece of "mountains of evidence" you're claiming.

Genetics and the nested hierarchy.

But it doesn't fit my prediction: which is that my challenge cannot be met with physical biological evidence.

You don't have to have 100% knowledge in order to have evidence. That is the whole point about Dawkin's analogy.

And that's what counts.

Dogma does not count for anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't have to have 100% knowledge in order to have evidence.

I'm not asking for 100% knowledge.

I'm asking for physical, biological evidence currently on display anywhere.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not asking for 100% knowledge.

Yes, you are.

"Can we take every single piece of physical biological evidence for evolution that is currently on display everywhere, and line them up side-by-side in a way that can account for every single year in history since abiogenesis?"

 

[EternalDragon]

Read it again. The series of events does have missing links. The defense attorney argues that the gaps between the video tapes somehow exonerates his client even though all of the evidence outside of the videos demonstrates that his client is guilty.

As Dawkins discusses in the rest of the article, fossils are just icing on the cake. If we didn't have a single fossil we would still have mountains of evidence demonstrating that evolution occurred. The same with the murder case.



100% of the evidence fits the predictions made by the theory of evolution.

Lots of murder cases and other cases have innocent people convicted.

Mountains of evidence = similarities between species and inferred conclusions about the evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lots of murder cases and other cases have innocent people convicted.

A lot of people are exonerated based on forensic evidence after having been convicted based on so called "eye witness testimony".

Mountains of evidence = similarities between species and inferred conclusions about the evidence.

Yes, otherwise know as evidence. DNA fingerprinting? Similarities based on DNA which infers that the sample belongs to the defendant.

Are you saying that if life evolved that we should not find any similarities?

 

[pgp_protector]

So how much data does one need to have full confidence in a "Historical" event?

 

[AV1611VET]

So how much data does one need to have full confidence in a "Historical" event?

Are you asking me?

 

[Cheeky Monkey]

'Bout time you showed up!

Where you been?

In the outback. I'm not going to be regular until later this week.

 

[nuttypiglet]

Projection at it's finest.



Evolution works through selection which is the opposite of chance. Please learn about evolution before discussing it.

Oh I know how it works. The truth is, over 99% of mutations kill the offspring or leave it severely disabled. This leaves evolution with very little time, which it relies on so badly. You have not grasped what Dawkins is saying. He is saying that if a gene mutation is doing nothing, it will keep it if it knows that this mutation will be valuable in the future when other mutations occur. Oh, and yes, mutations are random and by chance. I'm not speaking of eye colour etc, these are not chance. Perhaps you can explain then why many insects haven't evolved over millions of years. Apart from size, a spider, millipede, mosquito, dragonfly etc etc are quite recognizable.

Yes, precisely how selection works.



Why is this a problem? The line between species is blurred because evolution is producing new species.
It's a problem because without true definition of a term used to categorize things, what hope is there? There isn't a true accepted definition for 'living' either.


Can you list the criteria you use to determine if two species belong to the same kind?
Hand on. You are asking me to list a criteria that determines if two species fits into the same kind, when species is not even defined? That's like asking me to list a criteria for invisible life forms to be fit into kind.


All of the evidence for evolution is observable. No faith needed.
Then name ONE you have observed. Just ONE case of Macro evolution you have personally observed.


Then show that the interpretation is wrong.
Oh come on, be honest please. There are countless times that interpretation has been wrong. Even the lineage of the horse was scrapped.



Empty claims. Where is your evidence that the hundreds of hominid transitional fossils are fakes?

Is this where truth and honesty breaks down with evols again? Where they can't accept the endless mistakes? Even Lucy was laughed at by dentists and medical professionals.

 

[EternalDragon]

Is this where truth and honesty breaks down with evols again? Where they can't accept the endless mistakes? Even Lucy was laughed at by dentists and medical professionals.

Oh, they are still toting around Lucy as an exhibit as though she were some sort of hybrid human instead of the knuckle walker ape that she is.

 

[StormanNorman]

Is this where truth and honesty breaks down with evols again? Where they can't accept the endless mistakes? Even Lucy was laughed at by dentists and medical professionals.

Dentists and medical professionals?

Oh, they are still toting around Lucy as an exhibit as though she were some sort of hybrid human instead of the knuckle walker ape that she is.

She was ape .... so, are you.

 

[EternalDragon]

She was ape .... so, are you.

Last time I looked I was a human, riding a motorcycle, wondering about life, and using a computer.

There are no apes here.

 

[Split Rock]

Last time I looked I was a human, riding a motorcycle, wondering about life, and using a computer.

There are no apes here.

Are there any vertebrates here? What about mammals?

 

[StormanNorman]

Last time I looked I was a human, riding a motorcycle, wondering about life, and using a computer.

There are no apes here.

OK, so you are a motorcycle-riding, wondering, computer-using ape.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are no apes here.

Are there any vertebrates here?

That's like:

A: There is no alcohol here.
B: Are there any drinks here?

 

[EternalDragon]

Are there any vertebrates here? What about mammals?

Really??? Really?? That's like saying apes and humans both have brains so we must have a common ancestor.

Sorry, you can't dilute it and then try to identify it.

 

[EternalDragon]

OK, so you are a motorcycle-riding, wondering, computer-using ape.

Sorry, those are not characteristics of animals. If so, name one that does any one of those things.

 

[pgp_protector]

Sorry, those are not characteristics of animals. If so, name one that does any one of those things.

Humans

 

[nuttypiglet]

Oh, they are still toting around Lucy as an exhibit as though she were some sort of hybrid human instead of the knuckle walker ape that she is.

I think it takes special spectacles or something to see something which isn't there. Lucy is of course just the tip of the iceberg, but no evol will stand up and ADMIT it, not man enough.
If you draw a line representing all that is knowable in the Universe, then overlay what man knows as fact, we know nothing.

 

[EternalDragon]

Humans

I said name an animal. Just because someone came up with a classification system does not make us animals. No animal will ever act as a human does.

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.