proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

no one can do that since such evolution will take million of years. so basically it cant be prove or demonstrate.

Exactly! Evolution can't be verified or observed!

 

[Skreeper]

this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):

is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?

(image from Vehicles)

 

[rjs330]

RJS, I think you're simply in over your head on this topic, but I'm going to keep on trying.


More hand waving.
More parroting a mantra without support.


More hand waving.
More parroting a mantra without support.


And his exactly why I think you're in over your head. When given a specific set of examples of how "common design" is untenable you parrot your mantra again and then begin bloviating and talking in circles rather than actually addressing any, much less all of the examples I provided.

For instance the part in purple. You clearly didn't even understand my list because three of them:
- GULO pseudogene
- Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 pathway
- VTG pseudogenes
don't work at all. You haven't explained why the designer would put something that didn't work in the genomes of not just one species but dozens and hundreds.

Because the creator used common design and established that the genetic make up of things worked for that creature. This is even more evident than evolution from a common ancestor. The design is within each creature is obvious as it's design allows it to live and exist within the environment. Like all buildings have the same engineering designs which allow it to stand. Even though buildings are not identical they all is the same engineering in order to be able to stand and function as a building. It's the same principle.

 

[pitabread]

This is only in your mind. I have expressed it and so has truth seeker. It's just that you are refusing to see it. Common design is obvious. All living things have much of the same things that make up their being. From the construction of cells, genes, the abilities to adapt. The creatures of the sea have common traits and design to exist in the sea. Land creatures all have commonalities that allow them to exist on land. It's not that difficult really.

If it's not that difficult, then why are you having so much trouble explaining it? You keep asserting that common traits are evidence of common design, but you haven't once explained why that should be the case.

Perhaps it's not that simple or obvious after all.

 

[2tim_215]

Common Ancestor vs Common Creator: Which is more rational and makes more sense? Something based on millions of years and rock samples with no history to back it up? Or something with plenty historical reference, many eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence (something that Evolution does not have since there was no writing available 4.5 Million years ago, not even 100,000 years ago).

and to make matters worse, how could one know what exactly happened here on the earth for the last 4 million years. Too many variables and no written accounts. Purely speculative. And what is more plausible, that we were created by some intelligent being or we came from apes or amoeba's or fish or garbage in outer space? There has to have been some catastrophic events during those 4 Million years that could explain a lot of our rock findings.

 

[pitabread]

Exactly! Evolution can't be verified or observed!

*sigh*

The process is observable. The only main difference between observing it for a decade (the length of time of Sarah's experiment)versus millions of years would be the relative number of compounded changes.

But the generation-to-generation process is exactly the same.

Or to put it another way, it's like a person walking across the street versus a person walking across town. The act of walking doesnt change, only the distance travelled.

 

[xianghua]

But the generation-to-generation process is exactly the same.

not realy. if there is a system that cant evolve stepwise then small steps cant make big step.

Or to put it another way, it's like a person walking across the street versus a person walking across town. The act of walking doesnt change, only the distance travelled.

again: if he will have a big hole in the middle, he will not reach his target.

 

[gaara4158]

1) first: those proteins arent identical but similar. so you cant say that they has other functions since they arent the same proteins.

The fact that they're similar and not the exact same protein isn't problematic under an evolutionary model. A mutation that slightly changes the protein can optimize it for its new function as part of the flagellum while mostly maintaining its original form. After all, they're not performing their old function anymore. Why would they need to stay exactly the same?

2) many of those proteins are from several kinds of bacteria. so you cant just mix them in a bacteria to form a flagellum.

They're not from several different kinds of bacteria, they're common to them. The flagellum wasn't constructed from several different bacteria ala Frankenstein's monster, it evolved from existing structures over several generations by natural selection through mutation.

3) even if we ignore all of this, what is the chance for mixing about 30 different parts in about 10^7 bases genome to get a minimal flagellum?

The flagellum does not simply fall into place by mixing the ingredients together like cake batter. There are a series of events that lead up to its formation, and each of those events has a better chance than the whole thing just falling together at once. Ignoring all that, even if you consider the evolution of the flagellum to be absurdly improbable, it's still a better explanation than intelligent design because you can't point to an actual designer to substantiate your explanation.

Think of all the absurdly improbable events that had to happen in order for me to end up here, writing this post. My entire ancestral lineage had to happen, as did yours, as did the people's who invented, constructed, and mass-produced the technology I'm using to write this... the list of things that had to converge to culminate in this event is endless. If you could enumerate the odds, you'd have a number with more zeroes than atoms in the universe, and you'd conclude that I would never sit down to write this. Yet here we are.

5) do you think that its possible at the anatomical level too? (for instance hearing system).

You talk about that a lot too. I think it's possible at every level, yes. I don't think irreducible complexity exists anywhere in biology. If you disagree, prove it.

 

[Aman777]

Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?

He didn't. The problem is with your ToE which cannot tell us the difference between Humans (descendants of Adam) and prehistoric people (descendants of the common ancestor of Apes). IOW, it's an incomplete, untrue, made up theory of godless men who REJECT God's Truth in Genesis.

***Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?

It doesn't matter since I just refuted (proved wrong) your false ToE. You are left all alone twisting slowly, slowly in the wind.

*** Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?
Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?

Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.

Sure it does since there would be NO living creatures if God had not created them. Your feeble part truth leaves out that part too, since it has no idea where the creatures it studies had their origin. Hint: We are His and Their kinds. Amen?

 

[PsychoSarah]

We'll go ahead and do that then. What I am more interested in is if you are able to show the crustaceans evolve into something that's not a crustacean. That would be something.

Uh, why would they have to change that drastically? For your information, crustaceans are all part of an extremely diverse subphyllum, and it includes items as different from Triops as barnacles. To give you a better idea of how many organisms can be in just 1 subphyllum, all vertebrates are in the same subphyllum. You're asking for a change more drastic than a wolf population evolving into a dolphin population. I would disprove evolution if something like that happened in 10 years.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Exactly! Evolution can't be verified or observed!

Except in my evolution experiment. Yeesh, I even designed it in such a way that anyone with the time could do the same experiment as me.

 

[Speedwell]

Common Ancestor vs Common Creator: Which is more rational and makes more sense?

As a Christian, the only thing that makes sense to me is both. "And" not "vs."

 

[2tim_215]

As a Christian, the only thing that makes sense to me is both. "And" not "vs."

So as a Christian, you think you descended from an ape? I didn't say science. I think that creation and evolution cannot both be true.

 

[Speedwell]

So as a Christian, you think you descended from an ape? I didn't say science.

I am an ape. A member of the superfamily Hominoidea to be exact.

I think that creation and evolution cannot both be true.

I don't see any problem. Whatever science discovers about our origins, God is responsible for it.

 

[2tim_215]

I am an ape. A member of the superfamily Hominoidea to be exact.

I don't see any problem. Whatever science discovers about our origins, God is responsible for it.

OK, so then you're an animal and there's no distinction between animals and men. Where is this said to us in the Bible? Or are you just a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the Bible?

 

[pitabread]

Or are you just a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the Bible?

Isn't this a violation of the forum rules?

Edited to add:

• Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.

 

[Speedwell]

OK, so then you're an animal and there's no distinction between animals and men.

No. You can believe that if you want, but I don't have to.

Where is this said to us in the Bible? Or are you just a "Christian" who doesn't believe in the Bible?

So you want to play "Who's a Christian?" now? What do you mean by "believe in the Bible" anyway? I believe it is the inspired word of God and "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

But the Asian population remains Asian and the African population remains African until they interbreed. We agree, it’s simply the means of that change in populations we disagree on. Since that change arose from interbreeding, in a mere nine months, not mutations over millions of years....

Others have refuted this exact claim you've made a thousand times on this forum.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Common Ancestor vs Common Creator: Which is more rational and makes more sense? Something based on millions of years and rock samples with no history to back it up?

Evolution is backed up by a mountain of evidence. Comparative anatomy, fossil record, DNA & Genetics, observations in nature and in the lab, embryology and more.

Or something with plenty historical reference, many eyewitness accounts and documentary evidence (something that Evolution does not have since there was no writing available 4.5 Million years ago, not even 100,000 years ago)

Which is contradicted by several other religions. Evolution is supported by an abundance of verifiable facts and is contradicted by nothing. It's literally the most robust, most tested theory in all of science.

and to make matters worse, how could one know what exactly happened here on the earth for the last 4 million years. Too many variables and no written accounts. Purely speculative

How could anyone solve a crime if there are no written accounts!? It's called looking at the available evidence. Your incredulity doesn't make something false.

And what is more plausible, that we were created by some intelligent being or we came from apes or amoeba's or fish or garbage in outer space?

99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same base pair in the chimpanzee genome. This is only possible if we share a common ancestor. Game. Set. Match.

 

[2tim_215]

Isn't this a violation of the forum rules?

Edited to add:

How's that? I simply asked you a question?