Prove it or remove it challenge

Extraneous said:

To be honest, its very difficult for me to imagine evolution at all. For a species to come into existence via evolution, a group of individual animals belonging to the same species would need to evolve all at the same time, both male and female as well.

Click to expand...

Evolution is gradual. Every individual that was ever born was of the same species as its direct parents. It's not like a Homo Erectus at one point gave birth to a Homo Sapiens.

When a beneficial mutation occurs, that's not "evolution" per say. The organism holding those "better" genes still needs to procreate and pass those changes to its off spring. They then do the same etc, until that one tiny change is present in most of the population.

Imagine if every single one of your ancestors formed a big line, holding hands. Let's say your male ancestry, to make it easier to visualize. So you're holding your dad's hand, he's holding his dad's hand and so on.

You can walk by that line and "walk back in time", one generation at a time.
It would be impossible to draw a line between two of those ancestors while saying "here, this is a human/homo sapiens, but his dad is not". It doesn't work that way.

Maybe even easier to visualize is the analogy of evolving languages.
Italian, French, Spanish, Portugese,.. all those are derived from Latin. So the ancestors of Italian, French, Spanish,... folks didn't speak any of these languages. They spoke Latin instead.

However, at no point in time did a Latin speaking mother raise an Italian speaking child.

Mutations usually seem to cause disease as well, and i dont see how mutations can be a good thing.

Click to expand...

How about a mutation that makes insects immune to pesticide?
How about mutations that decrease bone density in flying creatures, making them lighter?
How about mutations in Tibetans (who have a unique gene sequence) which causes an increase in red blood cell production, which allows them to live at high altitudes without having health problems?

Also, consider the fact that, on average, every new born human has some 50 - 75 mutations in their DNA. That's 50 to 75 things in their DNA that are unique to them, that weren't inherited from mommy and daddy.

Most mutations actually are rather neutral and have no effect on the organism at all.

It just seems all so far fetched. I know God seems far fetched as well, but for me it makes more sense.

Click to expand...

An unfalsifiable, supernatural deity that can't be supported with any evidence and who works through magic / miracles, is in no way, shape or form "more sensible" then a natural, observable process that can be tested and which simply works through the known processes of chemistry and physics.

JacksBratt said:

Wow, Cars evolved from Ferris wheels...... Had to have been this way. Look at all the similarities and you can follow the steps in it's evolution from Ferris wheel to dolly, to airplane to grocery buggy to child stroller to tank to car. It's amazing.

Click to expand...

1. none of these objects reproduce with variation
2. by extension, none of these objects are subject to the processes of biology
3. all of these objects demonstrably are manufactured in human build factories.

Extraneous said:

Its not fallacy, its just opinion. Those mutations you mention dont cause people to turn into Apes, just for example.

Click to expand...

Humans ARE apes. Just like humans ARE mammals.

DogmaHunter said:

Evolution is gradual. Every individual that was ever born was of the same species as its direct parents. It's not like a Homo Erectus at one point gave birth to a Homo Sapiens.

Click to expand...

Thank you, that answer however doesnt reflect my concerns.

DogmaHunter said:

Humans ARE apes. Just like humans ARE mammals.

Click to expand...

We already covered that. Have you been paying attention? It was simply an error in communication on my part, which i already admitted to. What i meant to say was another "kind" of ape.

Extraneous said:

I would say that ToE proponents should face the facts about ToE as well

Click to expand...

We do. Unless you have any new facts to present, what is it you think you know that we don't?

Extraneous said:

Thank you, that answer however doesnt reflect my concerns.

Click to expand...

So what are your concerns, exactly? Without strawmen about "worshipping" evolution, if you please?

Armoured said:

We do. Unless you have any new facts to present, what is it you think you know that we don't?

Click to expand...

I already addressed that multiple times. It was concerning mans ability to discern his own origin via scientific methods.

JacksBratt said:

All software designers are creators. They live and exist in a world outside the rules of computer language. They create within the world of computer language where their creations must follow the rules. They are not subject to such limitations.

This is exactly like our creator. He exists outside the rules of our dimension. He created us based on the rules of our dimension but is not confined by them or limited by them.

Our world is created by intelligent design. Software designers function in a similar type of world.

Click to expand...

If DNA is the result of a someone analogous to "software engineer", then that person would get fired instantly.

Life is not an example of "intelligent design". If it is a design, it is "stupid design" or "inefficient design" or "wasteful design".

The goals we shoot for in our team are elegance, simplicity, efficiency,... The way genetics / life works is the complete opposite of that.

However, that kind of systems would be exactly what we would expect if it was the result of something like evolution.

Armoured said:

So what are your concerns, exactly? Without strawmen about "worshipping" evolution, if you please?

Click to expand...

It was not a strawman, just a choice of words, no need to derail the subject matter over one word.

Extraneous said:

What about this idea of Junk DNA? I thought that some DNA that was previously thought to be junk, but ended up having a purpose after all. That just shows me that they lack proper understanding of DNA. I gotta go friend. I would have loved to talk about it a little but i cant answer three different people at one time. Thank you and have a nice day.

Click to expand...

In lab mice, 22 million bases were removed from the DNA and it didn't make a single difference. The mice were normal healthy mice.

Extraneous said:

It was not a strawman, just a choice of words, no need to derail the subject matter over one word.

Click to expand...

Words have meanings and emotive implications. If you don't mean "worship", don't say "worship". It's no good using the wrong terms and then complaining when others don't understand what you mean. We can only talk your words at face value.

DogmaHunter said:

In lab mice, 22 million bases were removed from the DNA and it didn't make a single difference. The mice were normal healthy mice.

Click to expand...

Doesn't actually prove anything, and it surely doesn't diminish my skepticism concerning mans ability to discern his own origin via scientific methods. If anything it only supports my conclusion that man is far from being able to discern such a difficult mystery.

Extraneous said:

I already addressed that multiple times. It was concerning mans ability to discern his own origin via scientific methods.

Click to expand...

What's your concern, though? No one is claiming evolutionary theory is perfect, or answers all the questions, merely that it is the bet explanation of the available evidence we currently have. If you can come up with a better explanation, or find some evidence that demonstrates evolution isn't correct, I will personally write to Stockholm to nominate you.

Extraneous said:

Doesn't actually prove anything, and it surely doesn't diminish my skepticism concerning mans ability to discern his own origin via scientific methods. If anything it only supports my conclusion that man is far from being able to discern such a difficult mystery.

Click to expand...

...how?

Extraneous said:

Thank you, that answer however doesnt reflect my concerns.

Click to expand...

Your concern is the result of being ill-educated on the topic.

All your objections in this thread are directly related to "i don't understand it, therefor it's false".

It's incredulity and ignorance all the way down.

Lucky for you though, ignorance is easily cured. However, it takes some effort.

Armoured said:

Words have meanings and emotive implications. If you don't mean "worship", don't say "worship". It's no good using the wrong terms and then complaining when others don't understand what you mean. We can only talk your words at face value.

Click to expand...

I meant worship, however thats irrelevant. Please, dont derail the subject matter

Extraneous said:

I meant worship, however thats irrelevant. Please, dont derail the subject matter

Click to expand...

Then I was correct, you were strawmanning. No one "worships" evolution by any definition of "worship" I know of. It's not a derail, either, it's commenting directly on something you said. But I'm happy to leave it alone if you answer any of the other questions you've been asked here.

Armoured said:

...how?

Click to expand...

How what? How does it support my skepticism about mans ability to discern the great mystery of mans origin? It seems likely that removing DNA from a mouse only shows that man is still learning, and this shows his lack of understanding. Surely he cannot possibly understand the greatest mystery of all time, if hes still learning.

Or perhaps you are asking how it proves anything? What does it prove exactly? We dont know yet, all we can do is speculate at this point, which actually underlines my point seen above.

Armoured said:

Then I was correct, you were strawmanning. No one "worships" evolution by any definition of "worship" I know of. It's not a derail, either, it's commenting directly on something you said. But I'm happy to leave it alone if you answer any of the other questions you've been asked here.

Click to expand...

Its a matter of opinion, its debatable, perhaps its your argument that is the strawman.