No more strawmen, please

[ProbePhage]

I found a page that should be required reading for anyone posting on this board. It discusses the theory of evolution, exactly what it is and what it isn't. It's rather lengthy, but not too hard to understand. Just invest a little bit of time into it, and you'll come out a more educated person in the end. After all, there's no use attacking something if you don't fully understand what it is or why people feel it is true, right?

So here it is:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/whatevoisnt.html

I want to see people refuting THAT theory, not refuting "the idea that apes transformed into people" or "everything walked out of some primordial soup", or any other of the ridiculous strawmen I've heard on this forum.

 

[packsaddle]

Just invest a little bit of time into it, and you'll come out a more educated person in the end.

do you mean educated, or indoctrinated?

I just finished reading your link.

now, I have some questions.

let's examine just one sentence from that link:


"Humans are not directly descended from any species that is alive today; instead, we share common ancestors with them. Humans and apes both descended from an original common ancestor, a variety of hominid, that is now extinct."


this is nothing but mere handwaving.

don't tell us that humans and apes DO share a common ancestor - SHOW us.

where is the valid, conclusive, empirical evidence?

if evolution were indeed a fact, then it would no longer be just a 'theory'.

no more handwaving.

real science demands real evidence (testable, repeatable, observable, etc.)

show us HOW man descended from a common ancestor (sic).

show us HOW humans evolved from a common ancestor (sic), including the developmental pathways, and HOW those traits were inherited.

What mutations in gametic cells were required to evolve apart from our shared common ancestor (sic)?

this is science, so be specific.

 

[PhantomLlama]

He wasn't posting it as an evidence link, he was posting it as a 'this is what the theory of evolution actually is so stop with the misconceptions' link.

It was never intended to prove the truth of evolution, just educate people about what it actually is.

 

[Phred]

don't tell us that humans and apes DO share a common ancestor - SHOW us.

where is the valid, conclusive, empirical evidence?

Here http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

 

[sparklecat]

No more "if it were a fact, it wouldn't be a theory," either.

 

[JohnR7]

this is nothing but mere handwaving.

don't tell us that humans and apes DO share a common ancestor - SHOW us.

Actually, it is pixels on a computer screen. Handwaving would at least have something in the way of meaning to it. But I agree SHOW US your evidence. Show us in the DNA this commmon ancestor.

Or better yet, show us how DNA is formed. So that the DNA can "change" so that apes and humans can "evolve" from a common ancestor.

 

[JohnR7]

It was never intended to prove the truth of evolution, just educate people about what it actually is.

Well, like it or not, a big chunk of what this forum is here for, is to talk about evolution. So, let's talk about it.

 

[PhantomLlama]

Well, like it or not, a big chunk of what this forum is here for, is to talk about evolution. So, let's talk about it.

But not this thread.

But I don't really care that much. At least this will keep the thread near the top so that we might get a reduced number of 'Evolution says we came from monkeys' rants.

 

[Arikay]

John, you have been here long enough that either you have ignored many posts or you should have been shown already.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, it is pixels on a computer screen. Handwaving would at least have something in the way of meaning to it. But I agree SHOW US your evidence. Show us in the DNA this commmon ancestor.

This very discussion is ongoing and not one creationist has yet to make a comment, maybe you can be the first. It is on endogenous retroviral insertions shared by both apes and humans that strongly support common ancestory.

http://www.christianforums.com/t96639

Or better yet, show us how DNA is formed. So that the DNA can "change" so that apes and humans can "evolve" from a common ancestor.

This is one of the misconceptions that this thread is trying to cure. Abiogenesis (how DNA is formed) and Evolution (how the DNA changed) are two different theories. It is funny that in a thread trying to do away with strawmen people feel the need to insert them.

 

[funyun]

Someone questioning evolution? Well, we can't have that.

:: Pulls out a glock ::

Now, let's talk this over civilized-like, but if I don't like what u have to say...Bada-bing!

Actually, it is pixels on a computer screen. Handwaving would at least have something in the way of meaning to it. But I agree SHOW US your evidence. Show us in the DNA this commmon ancestor.

Or better yet, show us how DNA is formed. So that the DNA can "change" so that apes and humans can "evolve" from a common ancestor.

I think the fact that humans and animals share something like 95% identical DNA says something.

if evolution were indeed a fact, then it would no longer be just a 'theory'.

The phrase "theory of evolution" stuck, just like "theory of gravity" has, despite the fact it is a law (I've heard both). My knowledge of macroevolution is skecthy, but microevolution is fact. Some of evolution is theory as new evidence is found. There's nothing wrong with that. At least it shows that some ppl r looking for the answers in the world around them, rather than in a archaic book.

 

[JohnR7]

My knowledge of macroevolution is skecthy, but microevolution is fact.

Why do you think microevolution is a fact? What causes you to arrive at that conclusion?

 

[armed2010]

Why do you think microevolution is a fact? What causes you to arrive at that conclusion?

Theres this thing where bacteria mutates and starts to resist vaccines/cures/treatments?????

 

[JohnR7]

It is on endogenous retroviral insertions shared by both apes and humans that strongly support common ancestory

What, because apes and humans are both effected by a virus, that means they share a common ancestor? Because all of creation is subject to corruption?

 

[Loudmouth]

What, because apes and humans are both effected by a virus, that means they share a common ancestor? Because all of creation is subject to corruption?

If it is that simple to refute, why don't you go over to the other thread and do so.

For those lurkers, insertion of a broken viral genome into germ line cells is rare.

For those germ line cells to be involved in the fertlization of a zygote that makes it to adult hood is also rare.

For that gene to become part of the entire gene pool of a population is also very rare.

This is not the same as getting a cold.

 

[Philosoft]

Or better yet, show us how DNA is formed. So that the DNA can "change" so that apes and humans can "evolve" from a common ancestor.

This is just too inane an argument to maintain, John. I suggest you quietly discard it ASAP. I'm taking genetics right now. We spent two weeks learning about all the possible ways to effect a DNA mutation. We spent a week learning about some of the more common extant mutations and the molecular evidence for them. We are in the process of intercalating plasmid DNA into E. coli, which will confer both the ability to produce leucine and antibiotic resistance where it was not present before.

I don't think you're dishonest, which is troubling actually, because the only thing left is your sanity. Please put aside your blind adherence to Creationist dogma in favor of the plain facts just this once. I'll never ask again. Probably.

 

[JohnR7]

I'm taking genetics right now.

Well then answer the question. Where did DNA come from?

 

[Philosoft]

Well then answer the question. Where did DNA come from?

Nitrogen, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen & phosphorus.

The fact of which is completely irrelevant to the mechanisms by which DNA can be altered.

 

[notto]

Interesting bit on DNA.

http://www.napa.ufl.edu/2004news/artificialdna.htm

 

[Pete Harcoff]

<rant on>

I think the creationists in this thread have nicely demonstrated one of the frustrating difficulties in dealing with creationists on the subject of evolution. So many are willing to demand specific answers for certain things that either require incredible depth of knowledge or answers have yet to be found.

Yet, at the same time, they frequently ignore existing evidence or answers that have been found. For example, there's currently a thread on endogenous retroviruses, which is startling evidence for common ancestry, yet creationists have given it a wide berth. Why not go there and learn and try to tackle some of the issues being raised?

Or, you have sites like talk.origins which contain extensive articles (complete with even more extensive lists of references to further reading) like the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution and the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ (both of which contain evidence of chimp/human common ancestry, btw). Yet, most creationists appear not to have heard of such resources of information and even fewer are willing to do a little reading.

Lastly, when I see creationists ask seemily innocuous questions like "how did DNA evolve" or "where's the evidence for human evolution", I can't but get the feeling these people wouldn't even be able to understand the evidence even if presented it. Why? Because the answers to these questions are bloody complicated. Heck, I doubt most people would know what DNA stands for without the help of a Google search, let alone how it even works. Or what the differences between Homo erectus, Homo habilus, and Homo neanderthalensis are. Yet, they still demand all the answers on a silver platter.

My advice to these people is simple: Read. Go to a library and start looking up books and journals. Go to web sites like talk.origins, pour over the material there. And look up references. Don't just come to a web forum and expect to get all the answers in a nice, neat package. It ain't going to happen. Not because the answers don't exist, but rather that the scope required to answer such questions is beyond what you'll get with a few simple paragraphs on a forum.

<rant off>