proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

I have no idea. No one has ever offered an alternative model that predicts anything. I see no reason to expect special creation to look like common descent.

if so how we can falsified the claim of common descent?

 

[xianghua]

No, I'm referring to the kind of thing I described in post #265 of this thread.

im not sure how it's suppose to be evidence for a common descet. are you suggesting similarity in mutation events- therefore a common descent?

 

[sfs]

if so how we can falsified the claim of common descent?

We would falsify the hypothesis of common descent if the predictions it implies about genetic data were not observed. It's really not complicated. A model predicts something. We look at data. If we see the predicted thing, it's evidence for the model. If we don't, then there's something wrong with the hypothesis.

In this case, we have one model that makes detailed predictions and another model that makes no predictions at all. The detailed predictions are borne out when we examine the data.

 

[sfs]

im not sure how it's suppose to be evidence for a common descet. are you suggesting similarity in mutation events- therefore a common descent?

No. Did you read the post? The two plots show that genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like they're the result of mutations. If common descent is true, they look that way because they are the result of lots of mutations. If special creation is true, they look that way because. . . [creationist changes the subject].

 

[sfs]

And that proves evolution is more than a theory?

So Kenny'sID, why do you think common descent makes accurate predictions and special creation doesn't?

 

[xianghua]

No. Did you read the post? The two plots show that genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees look exactly like they're the result of mutations.

so you are talking about genetic difference between human and chimp as the result of neutral mutations?

another model that makes no predictions at all.

the design model actually make several predictions. one of them is to find evidence for design. and we indeed found such evidence:

In which direction does ATP synthase rotate?

 

[sfs]

so you are talking about genetic difference between human and chimp as the result of neutral mutations?

I don't care whether they're neutral or not. Just that they look like mutations.

 

[xianghua]

I don't care whether they're neutral or not. Just that they look like mutations.

i think i found your point here:

If common descent is true, then all genetic differences between populations are the result of mutations. Therefore, common descent predicts that genetic differences should look like lots of accumulated mutations

as i said: you referring to molecular clock= the difference between 2 creatures as the result of neutral mutations. but how it's suppose to be evidence for a common descent?

 

[HitchSlap]

Evolution from.a common ancestor is not a fact. A fact is something that can be proven. Common ancestor evolution isn't and can't be proven.

I don't believe you.

 

[pitabread]

I've seen and read much of the so called evidence from links you and others have posted. It's all assumption and supposition.

And you're free to keep believing that.

 

[lesliedellow]

And you're free to keep believing that.

Only he isn't so sure that his house isn't built on sand. So he is on here, day after day, trying to convince himself that evolution is false.

 

[sfs]

you referring to molecular clock= the difference between 2 creatures as the result of neutral mutations.

That's not the molecular clock. Do you know anything at all about evolution?

but how it's suppose to be evidence for a common descent?

If common descent is true, then all genetic differences between populations are the result of mutations. Therefore, common descent predicts that genetic differences should look like lots of accumulated mutations. This is evidence that they look like lots of accumulate mutations. Shall I just keep repeating myself?

 

[xianghua]

If common descent is true, then all genetic differences between populations are the result of mutations.

it's actually true even if creation is true (for instance: the difference between humans on earth is the result of mutations). so what is your point?

 

[Allandavid]

Sure. Ask your friend to show you real evidence for evolution.

Assuming we are all using "real" in the same manner...

Ask for him to take you to any museum and share the evidence of species transitioning from one species to another.

Which he will be absolutely able to do...!

Ask him to show you how kidneys evolved, or the liver or the spleen or the heart and circulatory
system evolved. Ask for the evidence.

Yes. He might start with this this obscure, know-nothing organisation...

Evolution of Organ Systems - Oxford Scholarship

Ask him to prove it.
In the end he can't.

As he can't with any theory in science...!

You know dinosaurs had all the body components - skeleton; muscles, organs, digestive systems;
eyes; brains; spinal cords; etc etc etc - they died out some supposed 65 million years ago and
ruled the world for hundreds of millions of years before.
So if dinosaurs had everything to be complex warm blooded animals and reproduce then just when did
all these necessary body parts evolve to allow for this? and from what?

Before that time.
From much simpler structures.

When you get into the nitty gritty of the how of evolution there is only supposition and hopeful
wishing.

That's the problem with you creationists...you never get into the "nitty gritty"...! As soon as someone starts producing the detailed evidence supporting evolutionary theory, it's fingers-in-the-ears time for most of you...

Show me the evolution of the eyes and sight: eyeballs that are cameras, rods and cones
that are photographically sensitive to images; optic nerves; brain receptors; turning upside down
images into the right way up. Should be easy to show all the steps involved from light sensitive bacteria
right through to what we can visualize today.

Yep.

Creation is self evident, evolution is continuing to deliberately deny the truth.

And yet, not one single creationist...ever...has been able to produce even an iota of evidence for their claim....

 

[rjs330]

Are you under the impression that repeating things makes them true?

I'm just following the evolution way.

 

[rjs330]

I have no idea. No one has ever offered an alternative model that predicts anything. I see no reason to expect special creation to look like common descent.

You see the predictions themselves are assumptions. How do we know that if evolution is true we would find certain things. Since we've never actually observed evolution from a common ancestor or been able to test the idea we just THINK it might be that way. Since we've never observed anything evolving into something completely different we assume again. Such nonsense.

 

[rjs330]

Assuming we are all using "real" in the same manner...



Which he will be absolutely able to do...!



Yes. He might start with this this obscure, know-nothing organisation...

Evolution of Organ Systems - Oxford Scholarship



As he can't with any theory in science...!



Before that time.
From much simpler structures.



That's the problem with you creationists...you never get into the "nitty gritty"...! As soon as someone starts producing the detailed evidence supporting evolutionary theory, it's fingers-in-the-ears time for most of you...



Yep.



And yet, not one single creationist...ever...has been able to produce even an iota of evidence for their claim....

The evidence of life and how the earth just happens to be able to support it is evidence. But I don't expect you to believe it.

 

[rjs330]

And you're free to keep believing that.

Thank you.

 

[HitchSlap]

You see the predictions themselves are assumptions. How do we know that if evolution is true we would find certain things.

Like T. Roseae?

 

[pitabread]

Since we've never actually observed evolution from a common ancestor or been able to test the idea we just THINK it might be that way.

Do you have cousins? If so, are they not from the same ancestors (i.e. your grandparents)? That's common ancestry in a nutshell.

Extrapolate the same process over millions of years and you now have the history of life on Earth.