proving evolution as just a "theory"

[DogmaHunter]

Good job, you just judged yourself.

No, I judged your faith-based religious comment with no basis in observable reality.
Which is perfectly appropriate, given the topic is a field that studies things in observable reality.

Thanks you for saving me the time and trouble by admitting that your faith-based system of beliefs does not have a basis in reality. Those are your own words.

Well, i'm rubber and you're glue!!!

This has just hit a new low.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes I did, he is defending evolutionary theory and I am not presenting a argument against the theory. Just the defunct corruption of the infidels in their attempt to hijack the theory.

Actually I was merely pointing out where you have been shown examples of beneficial mutations in the past, after you claimed you hadn't.

Most mutations are neutral or harmful. Few mutations are anything that even YOU could consider to be beneficial and very simple math shows that the mutation theory does not have a leg to stand on in your effort to try to use it for your driving force behind evolutionary theory.

I look forward to your Math, or is this just more unsubstantiated rhetoric?

 

[joshua 1 9]

And no, most mutations are NOT harmfull.

Most are considered to be harmful or neutral. Your theory makes as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Have you heard of Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium? Darwin's theory requires gradualism in order to work in the way you suggest.

punc·tu·at·ed e·qui·lib·ri·um
noun
BIOLOGY

1. the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.

Not my circus, not my monkey and not my typewriter.

 

[joshua 1 9]

This has just hit a new low.

Oh no, I have faith in you that you can go lower.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I look forward to your Math, or is this just more unsubstantiated rhetoric?

I gotta get my son to do the math. He can handle all of the advanced stuff, not me. Although I was amazed at how many people do construction work that have never even had a simple geometry or algebra class. Kind of makes me wonder what they were doing back when they were suppose to study that stuff to prepare for their future.

He has done the math on this and I think the power would require 200 zeros. Him and his friends were laughing about it. The one that got a full ride scholarship to a top shelf university. My son is taking Analytic Geometry and Calculus II. They are teaching him how to make the formulas.

 

[Jimmy D]

I gotta get my son to do the math. He can handle all of the advanced stuff, not me.

Er, didn't you just say it was very simple math?

I assumed that you had a) done the math or B) could cite a source. It seems you were just making things up... not cool.

 

[rjs330]

But why? After all, a designer doesn't *have* to use similar materials. Could not a creative designer use whatever they wanted? What is your basis for assuming the designer would use these 'common materials'?

Because this materials are present. This tells us the creator used those materials in order for all life to exist, continue, adapt and grow in the environment. He created. If he chose to create life to exist in a Mars type of environment then no doubt other materials would be used in order for life to exist, continue, adapt and grow in that environment.

 

[rjs330]

You may feel that way. There is, however, a fundamental difference in the positions.

On the one hand, you have people advocating in the defense of science and science education. And on the other hand you have those trying to dismantle it.

It's tough given that for creationists you're forced into a position of denying aspects of mainstream science, without anything substantial to counter it. And especially tough for Young-Earth creationists that are basically denying every branch of the natural sciences and a number of the social sciences on top of that.

It's not a position I find envious.

On top of that, a lot of what creationists keep proposing is demonstrably false. For example, you keep going on about evolution being just a "belief" or "assumptions" or "not testable", etc. And yet these are demonstrably incorrect positions. Just the fact that evolution including common descent has real world application means it's clearly not a mere belief. The fact that I can point to thousands of papers testing documenting the testing of various aspects of common descent demonstrates it testable.

Of course in doing so, you'll just respond by claiming that's just evidence of "common design" or some other repetitive mantra. But if I was to ask you to present the testable, scientific model of "common design", you'd never be able to do it. Because it doesn't actually exist.

Thus, from where I sit you're stuck in a position to deny, deny, deny. At the end of the day, that's all you've got.



I'm usually here out of boredom. Half the time I'm responding to something is in line at a grocery store or something.

I don't even consider this debate. It's mostly just noise.



I don't really see you as defending your belief though. From where I sit you can believe whatever you want. People have the freedom to do that (at least in free countries).

But what do you think you're defending it against though? Legitimate science is a search for understanding our universe and isn't going to change just because some people don't like the results. Reality isn't pliable in that regard.

This is why I find the creationist mindset so strange. It's basically reality denial. And I don't see where creationists think they are going with that.

But that's just it. You say you are based in reality, but you are not. Evolution from a common ancestor I'd not reality. Just cause you think it is doesn't make it so. Reality in science had to be observed, tested and reproduced in order for it to be so. Evolution from a common ancestor cannot and has never been tested, observed and reproduced. Therefore it is an assumption, a belief system since there is no way to show it's reality.

 

[rjs330]

You don't show evolution in a single creature, but across a number of related species over a period of time. So, if you mean, "Do we have fossils that show the evolution of the forelimb into the modern wing?" then the answer is yes:

Oh another assumption. There is no way to show what is claimed here actually occurred.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And when this random mutation occurred that changed this mythical common ancestor into man and chimp, just how many did this random mutation effect at the same time?

Mutations are variable in frequency, depending on where the gene is in the DNA. For example, mutations in eye color genes are extremely rare compared to mutations in many blood related genes, which is why hemophilia isn't always inherited (though, it is much more common for it to be inherited than the result of a new mutation). However, only 1 individual needs to have a mutation for it to eventually spread through a population; particularly if said population is small. People often forget that for the majority of the existence of our species, we lived in groups of less than 100 people and our population wasn't nearly so large as it is now.

 

[rjs330]

And yet, you enjoy the benefits from science, every hour of every day of your life.

We are talking about evolution specifically and not science in general. The vast majority of beneficial science is observable, testable and reproducible, such as medical science. Evolution from a common ancestor is not able to produce any if those things

 

[PsychoSarah]

We are talking about evolution specifically and not science in general. The vast majority of beneficial science is observable, testable and reproducible, such as medical science. Evolution from a common ancestor is not able to produce any if those things

Then participate in my evolution experiment "Creationists, Choose their Fate!" and watch some observable, testable, and reproducible evolution. Or watch it crash and burn, whichever.

I have offered so many people the chance to have me run an experiment for them, and no one takes me up on the offer. Why?

 

[rjs330]

If a species evolves into something completely different, instead of a sub-species, then evolution theory is falsified.

It seems you have no idea how evolution works.
If birds produce non-birds, then evolution theory is false.

No evolution is false because birds have always produced birds. They have never produced something that wasn't a bird.

 

[rjs330]

Then participate in my evolution experiment "Creationists, Choose their Fate!" and watch some observable, testable, and reproducible evolution. Or watch it crash and burn, whichever.

I have offered so many people the chance to have me run an experiment for them, and no one takes me up on the offer. Why?

What's your experiment?

 

[bhsmte]

We are talking about evolution specifically and not science in general. The vast majority of beneficial science is observable, testable and reproducible, such as medical science. Evolution from a common ancestor is not able to produce any if those things

Next time you visit your physician, ask them whether the theory of evolution has been beneficial to medicine. Then, i would hold your ears when they respond.

 

[bhsmte]

I gotta get my son to do the math. He can handle all of the advanced stuff, not me. Although I was amazed at how many people do construction work that have never even had a simple geometry or algebra class. Kind of makes me wonder what they were doing back when they were suppose to study that stuff to prepare for their future.

He has done the math on this and I think the power would require 200 zeros. Him and his friends were laughing about it. The one that got a full ride scholarship to a top shelf university. My son is taking Analytic Geometry and Calculus II. They are teaching him how to make the formulas.

Uh huh.

 

[bhsmte]

I do not have a problem with natural selection, bottleneck thoery, founder effect and a lot of what they call evolutionary theory. I have a problem with your denial of God and your claim that mankind is a product of mistakes & errors called mutations. God does not make mistakes and errors. His pencil does not need an eraser. There are no erasers in Heaven.

What you personally dont haveba problem with is irrelevant. The evidence though, is quite relevant, when dealing with reality.

 

[bhsmte]

Off the charts projection in this thread and highly entertaining.

 

[rjs330]

you seem to be confusing "running from this" with "trying to explain to you how you are arguing a strawman".



No, not into "something else".



Birds, monkeys, spiders, worms are a sub-set of that common ancestor.

Wolves and dogs come from a common ancestor that wasn't a wolf or a dog, true.
You know what it was? a canine. Both wolves and dogs are canines.

Humans and chimps share an ancestor that wasn't a human or a chimp. But it WAS a primate. It was also a mammal. And a tetrapod.

Newsflash: humans and chimps... both primates, mammals, tetrapods.

Evolution is a vertical process towards ever-more specialisation.
Species don't turn into completely different species. Species turn into sub-species.

i'm so sorry that you can't seem to wrap your head around that.
It's no surprise though, it seems you have real trouble in understanding what a pattern of nested hierarchies is as well.

It seems you struggle with the idea of common ancestor. Science may relegate humans chimps etc into a nice package, but that does not mean they came from a common ancestor. Science may look at the creatures of this world and define that all things that have certain characteristics that are the same or similar fit into an nice neat category such as mammal. But it doesn't mean they all came from a common ancestor unless you assume it does. Because there is no way to observe that, test that or reproduce that.

That common ancestor of yours evolved into spiders, worms, birds, ant and humans. Somehow it did eventually turn into stuff it wasn't to begin with.

 

[Aman777]

Ever hear of antibiotic resistant bacteria? They arose due to evolution (a change in the frequency of traits in a population). Evolution is not merely speciation.

It's because scientists wanted to reject God's Truth of changes within kinds in a population over time, to the godless word, evolution. Add to that other wild speculations, such as Humans evolved from Apes and you have the modern scientific fantasy of the ToE. The ToE is the biggest Satanic Lie ever forced upon innocent children in the Public Schools. Did they brain wash you too?