Nothing changes in this forum.

[Justatruthseeker]

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?

So then we are still invertebrate, fish, amphibians and bacteria?

So then the bilaterian split to become both the spider and human? I find your belief quite unconvincing.

 

[rjs330]

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?

No because a conspiracy indicates that all know somthing is not true but are going push it forward anyway. No I believe they believe in common ancestry of all thing to Their core.

Because it's all they have been taught. Anyone who doesn't believe that are labeled as non scientists, whacko nut jobs who don't have a clue and they are not real scientists. Because evolution from common ancestry has become THE belief. It's taught from gradeschool on as the only real thing. Not as a conspiracy but because they really believe.

Man will believe anything if it is pushed hard enough. Remember we used to think the world was flat.

 

[bhsmte]

No because a conspiracy indicates that all know somthing is not true but are going push it forward anyway. No I believe they believe in common ancestry of all thing to Their core.

Because it's all they have been taught. Anyone who doesn't believe that are labeled as non scientists, whacko nut jobs who don't have a clue and they are not real scientists. Because evolution from common ancestry has become THE belief. It's taught from gradeschool on as the only real thing. Not as a conspiracy but because they really believe.

Man will believe anything if it is pushed hard enough. Remember we used to think the world was flat.

How about it being about the actual evidence they are exposed to, through their science education? In essence you are saying, you know more about what the scientific evidence reveals, than the thousands of Phd level biologists, who forget more about this stuff, than you will ever know.

 

[rjs330]

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?

But apparently the cow was a fish at some point? Note you said might have been a tube at one point. Yep, lots of assumptions and supposition going on there. Just as I thought.

 

[rjs330]

How about it being about the actual evidence they are exposed to, through their science education? In essence you are saying, you know more about what the scientific evidence reveals, than the thousands of Phd level biologists, who forget more about this stuff, than you will ever know.

They aren't exposed to any actual evidence. They are exposed to data. That data is interpreted to mean something. It is assumed to mean common ancestry. The data doesn't provide any real evidence that we all came from one thing. All you have is data that there are commonalitiesz and similarities and you also have evolution onca micro scale. Throw all that together and suddenly all things came from one thing. In reality all it does show is common design. But since that's not "real science" it's tossed out the window in favor of supposition and assumption.

 

[Speedwell]

Because it's all they have been taught. Anyone who doesn't believe that are labeled as non scientists, whacko nut jobs who don't have a clue and they are not real scientists.

No hard feelings, but if you are going to set aside the orderly application of the scientific method in favor of some stories in an old book, then you are not practicing science any more. Even if you're not wrong, you're still not doing science.

 

[bhsmte]

They aren't exposed to any actual evidence. They are exposed to data. That data is interpreted to mean something. It is assumed to mean common ancestry. The data doesn't provide any real evidence that we all came from one thing. All you have is data that there are commonalitiesz and similarities and you also have evolution onca micro scale. Throw all that together and suddenly all things came from one thing. In reality all it does show is common design. But since that's not "real science" it's tossed out the window in favor of supposition and assumption.

In other words, you know real science better than the scientists do.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Speedwell]

No because a conspiracy indicates that all know somthing is not true but are going push it forward anyway. No I believe they believe in common ancestry of all thing to Their core.

"Common ancestry" is a reasonable inference from the data. It does not preclude more than one abiogenesis event. But while it remains merely an inference, framing it as a single event has a certain elegance,even though scientists understand that multiple abiogenesis events remain possible given the present state of our knowledge. The problem is, that the creationist version of multiple creation contemplates the creation of creatures in pretty much their modern form. That possibility is what is being dismissed by science.

 

[USincognito]

Man will believe anything if it is pushed hard enough. Remember we used to think the world was flat.

Given the correlation between YouTube scholarship and those who are YEC or a Flerer, this comment is quite humorous.

 

[USincognito]

But apparently the cow was a fish at some point? Note you said might have been a tube at one point. Yep, lots of assumptions and supposition going on there. Just as I thought.

No. The cow "cow was never a fish" Cows are fish because they are Sarcopterygians. I don't know difficult to comprehend that descendants never stop being what their ancestors were.

And yes, I used proper provisional language because, unlike you, I don't think I'm smarter than the experts. But go ahead and show us your command of the subject and tell us, in your own words, what protostomes and deuterostomes are.

I'll be waiting.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No because a conspiracy indicates that all know somthing is not true but are going push it forward anyway. No I believe they believe in common ancestry of all thing to Their core.

Because it's all they have been taught. Anyone who doesn't believe that are labeled as non scientists, whacko nut jobs who don't have a clue and they are not real scientists. Because evolution from common ancestry has become THE belief. It's taught from gradeschool on as the only real thing. Not as a conspiracy but because they really believe.

Man will believe anything if it is pushed hard enough. Remember we used to think the world was flat.

You don't even have to push him. He will invent his epicycles as needed to support his belief. look at Ptolemy, there was no reason or need to believe the earth was the center, but he made mathematical epicycles to support his belief and all of science supported his beliefs, until it became un-economical to support it any longer.

People believe in evolution, and they are not pushed at all, Deceived by the Ptolemy's who are convinced they are right, yes, pushed, no.

 

[pitabread]

Because evolution from common ancestry has become THE belief. It's taught from gradeschool on as the only real thing. Not as a conspiracy but because they really believe.

I asked you this earlier and don't think I received a reply:

Those in biology-related industries have a vested interest in the best understanding of biology possible. So if evolution was as false as creationists claim it is, why aren't those in industry pushing for a better understanding of biology to be taught? Keeping in mind that biology-related industries rely on individuals being taught biology to fill skilled positions in said industries.

Suggesting that people just believe what they are taught because that's what they are taught, also implies that nobody is capable of free thought or bucking against the trend. But that obviously does happen, since without which we wouldn't have advancement of scientific knowledge in the first place.

The real question you should be asking is why are the only people who take issue with biological evolution doing so for religious reasons?

 

[USincognito]

No because a conspiracy indicates that all know somthing is not true but are going push it forward anyway. No I believe they believe in common ancestry of all thing to Their core.

Because it's all they have been taught. Anyone who doesn't believe that are labeled as non scientists, whacko nut jobs who don't have a clue and they are not real scientists. Because evolution from common ancestry has become THE belief. It's taught from gradeschool on as the only real thing. Not as a conspiracy but because they really believe.

Man will believe anything if it is pushed hard enough. Remember we used to think the world was flat.

To paraphrase Mr. Montoya, you keep using that word...

 

[rjs330]

Thanks.



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).




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.

There is evidence if design in ALL of nature. The fact you don't see it is no you. You would never look at the functionality of anything in life and not recognize design. But you dont see it in nature. It's interesting.

 

[USincognito]

There is evidence if design in ALL of nature. The fact you don't see it is no you. You would never look at the functionality of anything in life and not recognize design. But you dont see it in nature. It's interesting.

I've been asking for over a month now to tell us how "common design" explains things we observe that are more consistent with common ancestry.

I'm sorry but no. "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).

Unless you can that you're just making stuff up.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

How about it being about the actual evidence they are exposed to, through their science education? In essence you are saying, you know more about what the scientific evidence reveals, than the thousands of Phd level biologists, who forget more about this stuff, than you will ever know.

Ptolemy supporters said the same thing about its opposition supporters. They just kept refining their epicycles, too, in the belief they were also correct. No conspiracy, just belief in an incorrect theory they believed was true. The "scientists" of that day also thought they were correct, and derided anyone who believed differently. Nothing has changed.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ptolemy supporters said the same thing about its opposition supporters. They just kept refining their epicycles, too, in the belief they were also correct. No conspiracy, just belief in an incorrect theory they believed was true. The "scientists" of that day also thought they were correct, and derided anyone who believed differently. Nothing has changed.

Things have changed: Science is no longer the same as it was then. You have tacitly acknowledged this by placing quotation marks around "scientists". Today's science is better structured and more demanding. Errors and false trails are more readily identified. The greater number and diversity of scientists makes it easier to challenge current paradigms.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Things have changed: Science is no longer the same as it was then. You have tacitly acknowledged this by placing quotation marks around "scientists". Today's science is better structured and more demanding. Errors and false trails are more readily identified. The greater number and diversity of scientists makes it easier to challenge current paradigms.

Please. Human nature is human nature.

For example, I can point to at least a dozen direct observations of supernova that falsify the belief of what they are. Yet theory goes on unchanged.

I can point to stars being observed forming on filaments in space, falsifying standard star formation theory, not from vast clouds of gas and dust. but star formation theory goes on unchanged.

I can point to over 2 dozen falsifying data observations that falsify standard comet theory, yet comet theory goes on unchanged.

It's human nature to only accept what supports your belief and ignore everything that doesnt.

look at GR. it is 99.9% accurate in describing the behavior of non-ionized matter (planetary systems). Yet the second you step outside the planetary system and attempt to apply it to plasma, they suddenly need 96% ad-hoc theory, because they refuse to use the correct physics as the dominating force in plasma. Despite over 200+ years of laboratory experiments, they continue to sledgehammer the wrong theory to the wrong state of matter.

Errors and false trails are covered up. Those that point out those errors and false trails are counted as crackpots and dismissed.

Why Dark matter alone has failed over 80 years of tests and over a dozen experiments. But that's the prevailing theory, so all those failed tests are ignored, no new avenue is explored, just refine the epicycles again and again.

Evolution is even worse.

 

[rjs330]

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

If we all came from the same thing then that is false. That thing evolved into spider and guinnea pigs eventually it was the original crossover.

 

[USincognito]

So then we are still invertebrate, fish, amphibians and bacteria?

No. "We" are still terrestrial tetrapods, sarcopterygians and deuterostomes. Invertebrate isn't a monophyletic clade.

So then the bilaterian split to become both the spider and human?

That's what the evidence tells us, whether Creationists like it or not.

I find your belief quite unconvincing.

And I find your rhetoric quite insipid.