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.
It's not about how you interpret, it's about how ERVs become 8% of the human genome. Common descent explains nothing but assumes everything.No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.
And that is his psychological out, he can tell himself, evolution can not be proven. Never mind, all the other scientific theories he takes advantage of, each and every day of his life are not proven either, but simply supported with evidence and evolution happens to be one of the most well evidenced.
Think it could have something to do with protecting his personal faith belief?
You're coming into the tail end of a long-running argument about whether scientific theories are "proven" or "confirmed" and the difference between inductive and deductive logic.What unproven theories are you talking about?
But you are suffering from some serious misunderstandings about science, which seems a shame as you could easily clear them up.
Just goes to show that you've never received a decent science education. Just talking to any scientist or teacher would clear your confusion up.
It's not about reality, it's about the conventional usage of scientific terms.You can either prove it, or you cannot, and if you think that should not be expected, I think you are suffering from some serious misunderstandings about reality.
It's not about reality, it's about the conventional usage of scientific terms.You can either prove it, or you cannot, and if you think that should not be expected, I think you are suffering from some serious misunderstandings about reality.
And we don't have any confirming evidence. All we have is facts. Evolutionists interpret the facts to mean common ancestry. When in reality it cannot be tested, observed, or validated.Not without confirming evidence. No one should "just believe" a scientific theory without confirming evidence.
No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.
No, just no. You cannot "interpret" things like shared psudogenes and ERVs forming a nested hierarchy as "common design" without mental gymnastics. Common descent, however, explains them magnificently.
Actually the mental gymnastics are yours. Common design is the only thing that doesn't demand a WILD and crazy interpretation of things. All it takes is observation of what is. Evolution on the other hand makes wild speculations without any real evidence or observation that such a thing occurred. Common design can easily be shown. Evolution cannot. Evolutionists cannot test it, observe it or validate it. They can only offer hypothesis whereas common design is observable, testable and verifiable.
"Common design" is ad hoc (a logical fallacy) and unfalsifiable (making it unscientific). If you want anyone to take the claim seriously you need to explain why the designer put 203,000 chucks and pieces of virus DNA into both humans and chimpanzees in such a way that mimics common ancestry, as well as why the designer put a broken gene for vitamin C production into all Haplorhine primates (including humans).
I believe you are saying that scientists don't want to accept that ToE is incorrect because they worked hard on it?
Well, have you heard of:
Lamarckism
Mutation Theory
Valence Bond Theory
VSEPR Theory
Bohr's Model of the atom
Steady State Theory
All of these were worked upon, and then discarded because they were not able to explain all observable evidence. The first two are related to evolution as well. Discarded.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you think doctors hold information or are they not given this information in the first place? That scientists are secretly given a talk on never revealing their secrets because it generates profits for doctors, but not for them (seriously, if someone leaked some hidden knowledge, they would become rich). Or do scientists and doctors have a hidden quid pro quo?
Exactly. Just like
Plate Tectonics
Radiations (we emit them)
Electromagnetic Waves (except the visible spectrum)
Air
The Rock Cycle
Radioactivity in some elements
A reaction without a catalyst
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time. Microevolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Connecting links to exist in the present. Fossils exist which show, step by step, how life evolved. It is really not anyone's duty to give you evidence on a silver platter. There are evolutionary biologists who belong to a religion. Do they have a secret agenda too? Is there a meeting to tell them to join the secret agenda when they pursue research in evolution?
I believe you are saying that scientists don't want to accept that ToE is incorrect because they worked hard on it?
Well, have you heard of:
Lamarckism
Mutation Theory
Valence Bond Theory
VSEPR Theory
Bohr's Model of the atom
Steady State Theory
All of these were worked upon, and then discarded because they were not able to explain all observable evidence. The first two are related to evolution as well. Discarded.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist. Do you think doctors hold information or are they not given this information in the first place? That scientists are secretly given a talk on never revealing their secrets because it generates profits for doctors, but not for them (seriously, if someone leaked some hidden knowledge, they would become rich). Or do scientists and doctors have a hidden quid pro quo?
Exactly. Just like
Plate Tectonics
Radiations (we emit them)
Electromagnetic Waves (except the visible spectrum)
Air
The Rock Cycle
Radioactivity in some elements
A reaction without a catalyst
Macroevolution is just microevolution over a long time. Microevolution has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Connecting links to exist in the present. Fossils exist which show, step by step, how life evolved. It is really not anyone's duty to give you evidence on a silver platter. There are evolutionary biologists who belong to a religion. Do they have a secret agenda too? Is there a meeting to tell them to join the secret agenda when they pursue research in evolution?
Your analogy has the drawback that it's, well, wrong. Scientists don't accept macroevolution because they observe microevolution and foolishly extrapolate. We accept macroevolution because of the overwhelming evidence -- from biogeography, from comparative morphology, from fossils, and (above all) from genetics -- that different species are related.The distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is not just quantitative, but qualitative. Microevolution notes that a man, with a good run up, can jump over a steam. Macroevolution takes this observation and believes he can, given time, jump the Mississippi!
It is not remotely evident to me, and I'm pretty sure I understand irreducible complexity.If that is not evident to you, you have never properly understood irreducible complexity.
Based on your opening argument, you're also commenting from the position of someone who doesn't know anything about why scientists accept evolution. (By the way, I've been a software engineer and I'm now a computational biologist who sometimes studies evolution. I've yet to see an argument for intelligent design that had any real substance.)When I saw that, despite having completed my Biology degree, I retrained in IT as I was weary of the intellectual dishonesty of the reductionist scientists. Fortunately, when asked about these issues now, I can comment from the position of someone who applies knowledge and design and using my little bit of wisdom, am able to create something out of next to nothing.
Well, that's your hypothesis. We can test your hypothesis by looking at what biologists who are Christians think. If you ask around, you will quickly find that the vast majority of them accept common descent, so I'm afraid your hypothesis fails. In reality, scientists accept common descent because it is highly successful and explaining and predicting a wide range of data. Creationism and intelligent design, in contrast, consistently fail that test, either by making no predictions or making predictions that are false.I gave up trying to persuade committed evolutionists a long time ago. As evolution provides a well respected, socially approved cloak for the rejection of God
Yikes. Well, if you're getting your information about evolution from sources like that, it's no wonder that you don't understand what scientists actually think. What she does in that video -- count current mutations and just assume that's the long-term rate at which mutations will accumulate -- is just wrong and guaranteed to give you the wrong answer.but just for fun, here is a great clip I recently watched on Mitochondrial Eve.
False analogy - evolution involves an accumulation of small changes, not sudden giant leaps. Micro and macro evolution are artificial distinctions. An appropriate analogy would be walking - microevolution is walking to the end of your drive. Macroevolution is walking to the next town. Just a matter of accumulated steps.The distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is not just quantitative, but qualitative. Microevolution notes that a man, with a good run up, can jump over a steam. Macroevolution takes this observation and believes he can, given time, jump the Mississippi!
Irreducible complexity has never held up under examination in a biological context (and even Behe's 'canonical' example of a mousetrap has been falsified). But if you have an example that hasn't already been shown to be false, by all means present it.If that is not evident to you, you have never properly understood irreducible complexity.
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?