proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Cars, on the other hand, do not reproduce. They are designed and manufactured, and if left alone for any expanse of time will do nothing other than decay.

true. so according to this criteria: if we will have a car that is able to reproduce, it can evolve into something like an airplane. agree?

 

[xianghua]

Actually we can

so prove that a fish evolved into human please.

 

[USincognito]

so prove...

We've had this discussion before. If you want to have a scientific conversation, you need to use proper scientific language.

No such thing as scientific proof.
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called “scientific proofs.” Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.​

{provide evidence} that a fish evolved into a human please.

I already did. You either didn't understand it or you chose to ignore it.

 

[xianghua]

A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

no. in this case it will be "solve" by convergent evolution.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)

even according to your own source they arent legs but flippers:

"In cetaceans, these hind limb buds usually reduce and finally disappear again, but sometimes traces of them are retained and develop into protrusions or even little flippers visible even in the adult."

or what about this shark with "legs"?:

Shark with legs?


as i said: evolution is just a belief. and not a scientific one.

 

[USincognito]

You do that alot to yourself.

Ah, didn't realize I was dealing with a 5-year-old who had mastered the "I know you are, but what am I" argument.

All were into eugenics and experimented to realise a super human race, which totally goes against the ethical and moral teachings of Christianity.

What "all" are you talking about? I was informing you that
1. artificial selection is not natural selection and thus not evolution per the theory.
2. humans have been engaging in artificial selection of ourselves for 2,300 years before Darwin so don't try and pin it on him.

Would you please stop associating Christianity with autocratic dictators who used social Darwinism to realise their genocidal goals.

Stop propagating fake news about Hitler following a Christian path.

Your so against Christianity that you ignore my posts that highlight that the fruits of Evolution Theory is anarchy leading to genocide. We have historic evidence trenched in blood for the last 100 years.

What in the world are you babbling about? I have done none of these things so your post is little more than lies, slander and goading. You might want to familiarize yourself with the forum rules before continuing to lie about me like this.

 

[USincognito]

no. in this case it will be "solve" by convergent evolution.

No, just no. This response makes no sense. There are no fish shaped marine beings that move up and down as opposed to side to side. Only marine mammals including whales that evolved from terrestrial mammals. You're just tossing out "convergent evolution" without any context in this instance.

even according to your own source they arent legs but flippers{snip}

1. I never said they were hind legs.
2. Whales don't have hind limbs. What is your ID explanation for them having hind limb buds in utero? What is your ID explanation for them having the gene pathway for hind limb development?

{snip shark non-sequitur since we're talking about cetaceans}

as i said: evolution is just a belief. and not a scientific one.

You say a lot of things. Most of them are wrong and none of them actually address the evidence for evolution presented to you.

 

[xianghua]

Proofs are not the currency of science.

so we cant prove that earth is a round? realy?

 

[sfs]

take the first case for instance. he just said that: "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."

Yeah, take that one. No one who said that should be teaching biology. There are no other scientific "opinions" about where humans come from.

he just said that he want to give the students alternative possibility for the origin of life. as science suppose to be.

You just quoted him saying something very different, something that had nothing to do with the origin of life.

 

[xianghua]

Either way, the point is moot - there is overwhelming evidence for evolution

can you give one?

 

[xianghua]

There are no fish shaped marine beings that move up and down as opposed to side to side.

true. so if we will find such a case biologists will claim that such a fish evolve such a trait via convergent evolution.

What is your ID explanation for them having hind limb buds in utero? What is your ID explanation for them having the gene pathway for hind limb development?

if i will give you a possible explanation under the creation model, you will admit that evolution is false?

snip shark non-sequitur since we're talking about cetaceans

but this shark aslo has leg-like trait. so according to this logic it should be evolve from a land creature too.

 

[PsychoSarah]

take the first case for instance. he just said that: "If textbooks state explicitly that human beings' origins are to be found with monkeys, I would want students to pursue and grapple with other opinions. There are many people who don't believe the evolutionary account is correct."

he just said that he want to give the students alternative possibility for the origin of life. as science suppose to be.

I already said I would vouch for the fact that this example you gave of a creationist being fired for his beliefs was true. He even won his court case about it. Alas, that doesn't change the fact that the movie Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed, is still a garbage pile of lies.

even according to your own links there are several serious problems with szostak work:

"A working version of a complete protocell has not yet been achieved in a laboratory setting. Other problems need to be solved, such as the fact that citrate is not a plausible prebiotic component: it needs to be replaced by an alternative component. Finally, at a certain level of complexity, a third main component of the cell would be helpful: chemical energy (metabolism). Nevertheless, conceptually and practically, the Szostak protocell is the closest approximation so far to the origin of life forms which have the potential to evolve"

or according to szostak himself:

"We have shown there is at least one way to make RNA replication chemistry compatible with primitive, fatty-acid-based cell membranes, but this opens up new questions. Our current best guess is there must have been some sort of simple peptides that acted in a similar way to citrate, and finding such peptides is something we are working on now."

as i said: abiogenesis is just a belief, not a fact.

-_- you misunderstand the "issue" with the experiment entirely, and why it exists. What do you suppose the chances are of life developing the exact same way twice are? Even if we could guarantee that the environment within this particular abiogenesis experiment was exactly the same as the one in which the original life on this planet developed, just by pure chance there would likely be some differences. Whether you like it or not, this experiment did result in the formation of very simple cells. It doesn't matter that they aren't precisely the same as the ones that would have formed billions of years ago, because they demonstrate what creationists like you have claimed is impossible; life can develop through natural processes.

As for the "problem of citrate", not everyone agrees on that one, and there are alternative compounds for its function Citric Acid and the RNA World
Personally, I think it makes perfect sense that the protocells that had RNA which facilitated the production of citrate had a better chance of persisting than ones that didn't. Furthermore, our understanding of the environment of the ancient Earth is not complete, so the reason for the concern over the lack of citrate may be a matter of a gap in our understanding that will be filled later. Who can say for sure? But I am glad that you at least read multiple sources.

true, but i refer to something like a cat or a dog.

I'm not sure why you think a multicellular organism with multiple specialized tissues is somehow less realistic for developing naturally than a multicellular organism made of mostly unspecialized cells.

 

[Astrophile]

no. in this case it will be "solve" by convergent evolution.



even according to your own source they arent legs but flippers:

"In cetaceans, these hind limb buds usually reduce and finally disappear again, but sometimes traces of them are retained and develop into protrusions or even little flippers visible even in the adult."

or what about this shark with "legs"?:

Shark with legs?


as i said: evolution is just a belief. and not a scientific one.

According to your own link - Shark with legs? -

It’s a male shark. Those are the shark’s claspers, or intromittent organs. The shark does the usual act you’d expect with a female of the species, and like many shark species, it has clasper spurs, or little poky bits that help lock the organ into the female’s cloaca while he gets happy. They aren't homologous to legs at all.

 

[xianghua]

Yeah, take that one. No one who said that should be teaching biology. There are no other scientific "opinions" about where humans come from.

yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others. do you agree or disagree?

You just quoted him saying something very different, something that had nothing to do with the origin of life.

so you have no problem to teach students about alternative views about the origin of life?

 

[Allandavid]

According to your own link - Shark with legs? -

Well, shock, horror...! A creationist being dishonest in their presentation.......who’d a thunk it....??

 

[sfs]

yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others. do you agree or disagree?

Disagree. The theory of evolution is a theory. Contrary to your statement, that does not imply there are other possibilities out there. Any scientific theory could in principle be challenged by a new and better theory. But as I said, there is no other scientific possibility currently on offer, and no theory of any sort that actually explains the data. So there's nothing else to teach.

so you have no problem to teaching students about alternative views about the origin of life?

No problem at all. There are in fact quite a few partial theories about the origin of life, and they are all appropriate for the classroom. (Note: "God did it" is not a theory.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

so prove that a fish evolved into human please.

You're missing some steps there.

 

[xianghua]

It doesn't matter that they aren't precisely the same as the ones that would have formed billions of years ago, because they demonstrate what creationists like you have claimed is impossible; life can develop through natural processes.

again: according to your own source:

"The influence of citrate on the structure and function of ribozymes is unclear. It is important to determine this influence, as most catalytic RNAs depend on Mg2+ ions, and the catalytic function of RNAs is fundamental for RNA world organisms. Furthermore, complete, prebiotically plausible syntheses of nucleosides are yet to be demonstrated. The ribozyme-catalyzed polymerization of activated nucleotides is far from being efficient enough for self-replication, and it is not yet clear how the products of RNA polymerization, highly stable RNA double strands, can dissociate and re-fold to form catalytically active RNAs."

again; just a belief. not a fact.

 

[Audacious]

so prove that a fish evolved into human please.

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia

Actually, we have a pretty good reason to think that we did. Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin is some great reading on that same subject, as well.

 

[xianghua]

According to your own link - Shark with legs? -

why do you think i add quotation marks?

 

[PsychoSarah]

yes there is. first: evolution is just a theory. so even by scientific terms it's just one possibility out of several others. do you agree or disagree?

It's one of the more well evidenced scientific theories, to the point that teaching an alternative is teaching something that has a fraction of 0.00001% chance of being right over the theory that has a 99.99999% chance of being right. There's no justification for teaching unrealistic alternatives. In other words, treating the theory of evolution as "just one of many possibilities" is like holding a race in which there are 99 participants that are old men that need the support of canes to walk, and the final participant is a healthy and energetic cheetah, and behaving as if the cheetah winning the race is "just one of many possibilities".

so you have no problem to teach students about alternative views about the origin of life?

I personally don't mind it too much, as long as a huge amount of time isn't contributed to a position that has practically no evidence supporting it, and how much evidence the alternative views actually have is represented honestly. Although, I don't think creationists would like it very much if biology instructors went out of their way to describe exactly how much evidence for creationism there is. After all, there isn't much.