Nothing changes in this forum.

[rjs330]

No doubt. But"function"and "purpose"have distinct meanings. The presence of one does not guarantee the presence of the other. Function can sometimes be observed, but purpose does not inhere in the object itself and must be inferred. Your point, apparently, is that purpose can be inferred from function, but this not something that "science does all the time." In fact, nobody even pretends to do it but the radical Calvinists at the Discovery Institute.

So why do you keep pushing that equivocation fallacy? Are you a Dominionist too?

I know they have to distinct meanings. Yet they are not necessarily exclusive. All it takes is observation and it's obvious that the heart has function and purpose.

 

[rjs330]

Sure you have. In fact, I've posted a number of different examples of applied evolution on this forum including medical-related. For example, here's one whereby evolutionary biology is incorporated into drug discovery.

But given the last time I gave you an example of applied evolution you merely hand-waved it away, I don't expect anything different.

Once again evolution is not necessary for this. If you notice similarities are used as the basis. The assumption is the similarities mean evolution from a common ancestor. You don't need that. All you need is similarities. And we ALL agree that there are similarities. Similarities do not mean common ancestry. Common ancestry is an assumption, an interpretation of facts. It is not needed. You can just as easily stop at similarities. You can also use common design and it will be just as valid.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know they have to distinct meanings. Yet they are not necessarily exclusive. All it takes is observation and it's obvious that the heart has function and purpose.

If its obvious then it should be easy for you to show and define this purpose.

 

[USincognito]

Oh I'm ready, and I bet you descendant will still he a human and so will mine. And I bet our DNA will still be able to show we are not chimps or guinnea pigs.

Where in the world did you get the impression that taxa evolve into other existing taxa? It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[USincognito]

When you have a priori belief that Darwin was correct in his interpretation of his observations you need to impose that upon your scientific findings. And if course since evolution cannot be shown to have ever occurred it's an easy thing to do. Cause Darwin was correct in what he observed. Evolution from common ancestry is nothing more than a humans interpretation of observable facts. The interpretation is what's flawed and since evolution is so all encompasing EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution to an evolutionist.

1. Darwin was not an apostle and Origin was not an epistle.
2. The science has moved far beyond Darwin.
3. Using magic words like "interpretation" does not make the evidence poof away in a cloud of smoke.

Science may start with data, but unless that data can be observed verified And tested it's not really valid. Evolution grew beyond science to an all encompasing belief system.

The data supporting evolution can be observed and tested. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No it doesn't.

yes, it does.

DNA is proof of that

Here's a tree that's been build by an automated process which was fed with completely sequenced genomes:

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

Here's a nice interactive version
iTOL: Interactive Tree Of Life

You can find out exactly what something is and is not because of DNA. The trees cannot be mapped out because there are huge holes and a ton of assumptions.

Clearly, that is incorrect. cfr: the links above.

In fact all that the trees can show is that groups remain the same no matter how far back you go.

 

[DogmaHunter]

When you have a priori belief that Darwin was correct in his interpretation of his observations you need to impose that upon your scientific findings.

In science, nobody is "just believed". Not Newton, not Darwin, not Einstein, not anybody.

The interpretation is what's flawed and since evolution is so all encompasing EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution to an evolutionist.

Evolution indeed has a lot of evidence going for it. That's what makes it a strong theory.

Science may start with data, but unless that data can be observed verified

The data that supports evolution is very observable and very verifiable.

Evolution grew beyond science to an all encompasing belief system.

Not at all.

 

[Jimmy D]

Did you actually read any of those? I read three of them and gave up. None of them provided any information on how evolution from a common ancestor was necessary to medical advancement. They didn't mention one single procedure that required evolution from a common ancestor in order to work.

LOL. "From a common ancestor"? Where did those goal posts go?

You said "I have yet to have someone give me a medical research program or procedure that has to have evolution as it's basis for it's findings or it cannot be accomplished".

Fighting HIV Evolution with an Evolved Therapeutic Agent: Phase I Dose Escalation Clinical Trial of a Potent Broadly Neutralizing Human Antibody

Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases: Exemplars of the Fluidity of Protein Structure and Function through Phylogenetic History

Augmented Infection Control via Practical Pathogen Phylogenetics Based on Whole-Genome Sequencing

A Genomic Perspective on Pathogen Adaptation to Antibiotics and Vaccines

Amino Acid Gymnastics and the Evolution of Influenza Virus Resistance to Oseltamivir

 

[Jimmy D]

Well you can ridicule and mock all you want, but you know what they say about those who do.

Thanks.

All those creation scientists do have information and do write books and papers. But the scientific community at latge does exactly what you are doing. Hand waive away and ridicule them.

I've hand waved nothing, because you've presented nothing. Let's have a look at one of these "papers" if you're so confident of their work.

(And I'm aware that they've written books, but we're talking about scientific evidence, not popular literature).

Your utterly unfalsifiable nonsense is precisely my point. You and others like you absolutely refuse to believe in creation or design because of the designer. Thank you for making my point .

It's true that as an agnostic I don't accept creation by a Deity described in the world's religions, including yours, but I'm prepared to entertain the possibility of a "designer" of some sort. However, I deem it extremely unlikely for two reasons:

Firstly, that there is absolutely no evidence of design.

"But everything is sooo complicated and wonderful!" is not evidence of design.
"But there are gaps in our knowledge!" is not evidence of design.

Secondly, natural explanations are perfectly adequate and are backed up by multiple lines of evidence which all tie together - without the need to invoke a mystery influence.

 

[pitabread]

Once again evolution is not necessary for this. If you notice similarities are used as the basis. The assumption is the similarities mean evolution from a common ancestor. You don't need that. All you need is similarities. And we ALL agree that there are similarities. Similarities do not mean common ancestry. Common ancestry is an assumption, an interpretation of facts. It is not needed. You can just as easily stop at similarities.

See? This is exactly what I was talking about. You're given examples and you resort to handwaving them away.

But claiming you've never seen any examples because you arbitrarily dismiss everything is just being disingenuous.

You can also use common design and it will be just as valid.

You keep claiming this, but any time we've gotten into specifics it seems that "common design" = The Theory of Evolution, just with different branding. But no matter how you decide to rebrand it, it's still going to be the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

Just more if the same. Prove to me that the heart does not have a function and a purpose.

Are you being intentionally dishonest? The heart shows design as function which can be observed. With respect to design as purpose, it cannot be directly observed. We have explained this to you many times, you know full well that design in the sense of purpose or intention is unfalsifiable and cannot be disproven. Nobody is even trying to disprove design in natural objects. For you to demand such proof at this point is either inexcusable ignorance or trickery.

 

[rjs330]

Where in the world did you get the impression that taxa evolve into other existing taxa? It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

More evolutionary deception. Always the fall back yet utterly false. According to evolution we and the spider are related. We and the spider have a common ancestor somewhere in the back eons of time. Yet somewhere that thing whatever it was began to evolve and eventually one branch became a sider and another became a human. So yes taxa did evovle into others.

 

[rjs330]

1. Darwin was not an apostle and Origin was not an epistle.
2. The science has moved far beyond Darwin.
3. Using magic words like "interpretation" does not make the evidence poof away in a cloud of smoke.
View attachment 225330





The data supporting evolution can be observed and tested. Where did you get the impression that it wasn't?

Data is interpreted to support evolution. Data does not support it. It's only data. No one has ever been able to support the evolution from a common ancestor by testing observation or verification. No one.

 

[bhsmte]

Data is interpreted to support evolution. Data does not support it. It's only data. No one has ever been able to support the evolution from a common ancestor by testing observation or verification. No one.

Would this then mean, according to you, all of these Phd level scientists (some of whom are Christian) are all part of a giant conspiracy?

 

[Speedwell]

More evolutionary deception. Always the fall back yet utterly false. According to evolution we and the spider are related. We and the spider have a common ancestor somewhere in the back eons of time. Yet somewhere that thing whatever it was began to evolve and eventually one branch became a sider and another became a human. So yes taxa did evovle into others.

New taxa were formed as new creatures evolved. Nowhere did a creature evolve into an already existing taxon. There were no "crossovers."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Would this then mean, according to you, all of these Phd level scientists (some of whom are Christian) are all part of a giant conspiracy?

Being wrong yet believing you are right, does not mean a conspiracy.

Ptolemy believed he was right, even had the math to back up his observation and belief. Just didn't make him right, didn't mean he was in a conspiracy.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

New taxa were formed as new creatures evolved. Nowhere did a creature evolve into an already existing taxon. There were no "crossovers."

New taxa were formed as creature A mated with creature B. just as we see in real life. Neither the Asian nor the African evolve into the Afro-Asian. Neither the Lion or the Tiger evolve into the Liger. Neither the Grizzly nor the polar bear evolve into the Prizzly.

The Asian remains Asian, the African African, The Tiger a Tiger, The Lion a Lion, the Polar bear a Polar bear and the Grizzly a Grizzly.

And that's why every single fossil ever found for any creature always remains that same creature from the oldest dated one to the youngest dated one.

Give up on that unsupported evolution fantasy. You just cant observe what mated with what from a pile of bones, so are forgetting how things happen in real life.

 

[rjs330]

LOL. "From a common ancestor"? Where did those goal posts go?

You said "I have yet to have someone give me a medical research program or procedure that has to have evolution as it's basis for it's findings or it cannot be accomplished".

Fighting HIV Evolution with an Evolved Therapeutic Agent: Phase I Dose Escalation Clinical Trial of a Potent Broadly Neutralizing Human Antibody

Aminoacyl tRNA Synthetases: Exemplars of the Fluidity of Protein Structure and Function through Phylogenetic History

Augmented Infection Control via Practical Pathogen Phylogenetics Based on Whole-Genome Sequencing

A Genomic Perspective on Pathogen Adaptation to Antibiotics and Vaccines

Amino Acid Gymnastics and the Evolution of Influenza Virus Resistance to Oseltamivir

If you read my post for very long you will find the basis of my belief. I believe that things evolve. SURPRISE! I don't believe that that all things remain exactly the same. I believe birds wings can change in strength. I believe moths can change their colors, I believe lizards digestive system can change. I believe that is a God given process to help life survive.

What I don't believe in is all things came from a common ancestor. Some unknown thing crawled out of the primordial ooze and slowly evolved into something and some how split to evolve into something else and the split somehow to evolve into two or three something eventually etc. That had no been shown to be possible.

I believe that God created a LOT of creatures in six days. He made them all unique a distinctly different from each other. He also gave them the ability to adapt and change, evolve, in order to continue to survive. Humans were created distinct and different from all the animals. We,the spider, snakes and worms did not all come from that one thing that originally existed which slowly evolved into everything.

Hope that helps clear things up. When I use the word evolution I am not saying things don't evolve. We've observed evolution take place. But all we have ever observed is commonly referred to as micro evolution. We can even test that. Evolution where all things were one thing at one time? Not so much.

 

[rjs330]

Are you being intentionally dishonest? The heart shows design as function which can be observed. With respect to design as purpose, it cannot be directly observed. We have explained this to you many times, you know full well that design in the sense of purpose or intention is unfalsifiable and cannot be disproven. Nobody is even trying to disprove design in natural objects. For you to demand such proof at this point is either inexcusable ignorance or trickery.

So you can't say the heart does not have a purpose. Just what I thought.

Could you say a door or a window has a purpose?

 

[USincognito]

More evolutionary deception. Always the fall back yet utterly false. According to evolution we and the spider are related. We and the spider have a common ancestor somewhere in the back eons of time. Yet somewhere that thing whatever it was began to evolve and eventually one branch became a sider and another became a human. So yes taxa did evovle into others.

First you go from humans evolving into chimpanzees or guinea pigs to thinking that the ancestor of humans (lets make that vertebrates) and spiders (lets make that arthropods) was anything resembling either of them. You also are still confused on how evolution works.

Again, extant taxa do not evolve into other extant or extinct taxa. Are we clear on that?

Next, descendant species never stop being what their ancestors were. A Bovidae might evolve into a bison, buffalo or cow, but it doesn't stop being a Bovid, or mammal or amniote or vertebrate. Are we clear on that?

Finally, the common ancestor of humans and spiders was a basal bilaterian that would have looked like nothing you could imagine. It most likely would have been a tube of some sort that lived 550 million years ago and predated the Protostome/Deuterostome split. Are we clear on this?