Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

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.

No thats not correct at all. You cant refute my observations concerning the fallible nature of ToE, therefore you want to refute my character. I believe that is a logical fallacy of some kind, on your part.

 

[Armoured]

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.

What the mouse business pretty conclusively proves is that non-coding DNA is non-coding, I'd say.

 

[Armoured]

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

I haven't argued anything yet, I've asked a couple of questions, and pointed out a couple of rhetorical flaws you've used. I haven't even seen you argue anything yet, you seem bent on arguing over semantics and mischaracterizing what evolutionary theory says, or how evolutionary scientists work.

You want to have an argument? Great. Cite some specific examples where you think evolutionary theory as it currently exists gets it wrong, and let's discuss those cases.

 

[Armoured]

No thats not correct at all. You cant refute my observations concerning the fallible nature of ToE, therefore you want to refute my character. I believe that is a logical fallacy of some kind, on your part.

We can't refute your "observations" because you refuse to clearly and unambiguously tell us what they are.

 

[Extraneous]

We can't refute your "observations" because you refuse to clearly and unambiguously tell us what they are.

Or perhaps you refuse to see them.

 

[Armoured]

Or perhaps you refuse to see them.

Or perhaps you could post them right here, in a direct response to this post?

 

[Extraneous]

What the mouse business pretty conclusively proves is that non-coding DNA is non-coding, I'd say.

Yes, and?

 

[Extraneous]

We say mans DNA is above 90% comparable to other apes. However if most of that is noncoding, what does that actually prove?

Man is also comparable to mice in that way.

 

[Armoured]

We say mans DNA is above 90% comparable to other apes. However if most of that is noncoding, what does that actually prove?

Man is also comparable to mice in that way.

We know where a lot of non-coding DNA comes from, though. Look up ERVs. And we are genetically less similar to mice than apes.

 

[Extraneous]

We know where a lot of non-coding DNA comes from, though. Look up ERVs. And we are genetically less similar to mice than apes.

That fact should cause us to pause instead of asserting that its evidence of mans origin.

 

[Armoured]

That fact should cause us to pause instead of asserting that its evidence of mans origin.

How so?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

That fact should cause us to pause instead of asserting that its evidence of mans origin.

Why?

The ToE posits that we should be more closely related to apes then mice.

 

[Extraneous]

Why?

The ToE posits that we should be more closely related to apes then mice.

Yes, but still very close to mice. Look at the difference between apes and mice. I can agree that ToE says we should be more closely related, but i cant agree that its evidence that man was actually once like a chimpanzee or something so dramatically different than he is now.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

How so?

Btw, the GIF of the Husky has been causing my cat a great deal of concern

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Yes, but still very close to mice. Look at the difference between apes and mice. I can agree that ToE says we should be more closely related, but i cant agree that its evidence that man was actually once like a chimpanzee or something so dramatically different than he is now.

Why does that create a problem for you?

Look at the grey wolf and look at a chihuahua. This is the change humans have been able to make over the past few thousands years. Why is it hard to imagine that other species and the environment would have the same effect over millions and millions of years?

 

[Extraneous]

Why does that create a problem for you?

Look at the grey wolf and look at a chihuahua. This is the change humans have been able to make over the past few thousands years. Why is it hard to imagine that other species and the environment would have the same effect over millions and millions of years?

Well, im going to fall back onto my original argument about ToE fallibility. That's the gist of my complaint.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Well, im going to fall back onto my original argument about ToE fallibility. That's the gist of my complaint.

That just seems to be a cop out. What we see in forced breeding of dogs is exactly what we see can see in nature with different selective pressures caused by other species and the environment.

To recognize that one is evolution but not accept the other is not logical.

 

[Extraneous]

That just seems to be a cop out. What we see in forced breeding of dogs is exactly what we see can see in nature with different selective pressures caused by other species and the environment.

To recognize that one is evolution but not accept the other is not logical.

I dont believe that breeding of dogs is the same as evolution itself. Regardless however, its not a cop out, and that gist i mentioned is instead my evidence that man if far from understanding mans origin. That is my main point.

 

[Armoured]

Well, im going to fall back onto my original argument about ToE fallibility. That's the gist of my complaint.

Everyone's already agreed the theory of evolution isn't infallible, so I guess you can go?

 

[Armoured]

I dont believe that breeding of dogs is the same as evolution itself. Regardless however, its not a cop out, and that gist i mentioned is instead my evidence that man if far from understanding mans origin. That is my main point.

Your main unsupported point. You don't explain the logic underlying your conclusion.