proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Oh my....

In order for the theory of common descent to 'work' in the case of two so closely related species, the theory would have to explain why one of these species (chimpanzees) has one more chromosome than the other.

but the creation model explain it too by a fusion event in the human lineage. so this isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp.

 

[Subduction Zone]

but the creation model explain it too by a fusion event in the human lineage. so this isnt evidence for a common descent with chimp.

Nope, not even close.

 

[xianghua]

That's still common descent.

not realy. we already know that the majority of mutations are neutral. therefore the creation model also predict those changes. so again: where is exactly the evidence for common descent here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

no. because we have evidences for heliocentrism. but we dont have evidence for evolution.

So you don't know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder you are so confused.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not realy. we already know that the majority of mutations are neutral. therefore the creation model also predict those changes. so again: where is exactly the evidence for common descent here?

Still wrong.

 

[xianghua]

In fact, orthologous cooties fall into a nested hierarchy among primates.

are you sure? take a look at this figure. do you agree that those 6 ervs are orthologous?:

 

[xianghua]

So you don't know what is and what is not evidence. No wonder you are so confused.

if you say so.

 

[sfs]

Why do you think no one here has addressed the OP?

That wasn't the question in the OP. The question was, is there anything the poster could say to prove the friend wrong. The answer is, no.

Is evolution fact or theory?

Both, as has been repeatedly pointed out.

If I answered that, would it answer that question point blank or is it just a distraction that sounds wise to the unaware but in the end means little or nothing to subject?

If you answered what? If you answered my question, rather than dodging it as you just did, you would start engaging with the reasons that scientists accept evolution rather than playing word games.

 

[sfs]

Depends on your prediction.

How about the prediction I actually made, the one I keep pointing people to, and the one creationists, including you, keep ignoring. You know, the one we're talking about. Or at least the one I keep talking about and all the creationists keep not talking about.

 

[sfs]

The definition is an assumption. We believe we came from the ancestor. We define we came from the ancestor. We predict we came from the ancestors.

You're stringing words together, but they don't form a coherent argument. A definition is not an assumption. That we came from a common ancestor is neither an assumption nor a hypothesis. A prediction is neither an assumption nor a definition.

And guess what we happen to find supposedly? Exactly what we expect. We assume and we find what we assumed we would find. And yet we still can't go back and find out if it's true.

Um, okay. Suppose I believe that John is guilty of murdering Joe and I go and start looking for evidence. I find John's fingerprints on the knife still in Joe's body, and I find John's DNA under Joe's fingernails, and I find video of John entering the room where the murder occurred -- none of that is evidence that John killed Joe, because it's what I expected to find.

You really think this is a logical position?

 

[sfs]

So for the deist: no chemistry, physics, crystallography, geology, geophysics, astronomy, histology, toxicology and so on?

Also, no auto mechanics, no football, no baseball, no military.

 

[sfs]

not realy. we already know that the majority of mutations are neutral.

So what?

therefore the creation model also predict those changes.

Huh? What creation model predicts that virtually all genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees should be the result of mutation? Be specific: What did the two genomes look like when the species were created? When did the creation happen? How many genetic differences were there originally? Were the two species identical originally or different? How many generations has it been since the creation? How many mutations would be required?

In short, say something with actual content.

 

[sfs]

are you sure? take a look at this figure. do you agree that those 6 ervs are orthologous?:

I see a bunch of lines, with no indication of what they mean. How can I tell whether they're orthologous or not?

 

[tas8831]

No lop, just didn't put it there to begin with.

If it proves evolution, let me know and I'll give it a look.

Head-in-the-sand-effect.

 

[xianghua]

So what?

Huh? What creation model predicts that virtually all genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees should be the result of mutation? Be specific: What did the two genomes look like when the species were created?

i think that they were about 95-99% identical.

When did the creation happen? How many genetic differences were there originally? Were the two species identical originally or different? How many generations has it been since the creation? How many mutations would be required?

it's possible that both chimp and human created about several milion years ago or even more. it's also possible that the creation event occured about 5000-10000 years ago (we have several evidences for that too). but for the sake of the argument i will agree with the radiometric dating for now.

I see a bunch of lines, with no indication of what they mean. How can I tell whether they're orthologous or not?

those lines are specific kinds of ervs. they looks like in the same position but they arent. will you consider them as orthologous?

 

[Hieronymus]

Quite obvious actually, just look at what Krishna has made...

Quite obvious actually, just look at what Nature's Pixies have made...

Quite obvious actually, just look at what visiting aliens have made...

See how easy it is to make empty claims when you provide zero evidence to support them...?

It seems you forgot what the question was, or maybe you just want to dodge the gist of my comment.
The question was if a Creator created or if it was just by chance.
The theological question you pose is another matter.
But if you have to know, God of the Bible YHWH Elohim makes the convincing claim, the ones you mention actually don't.

 

[tas8831]

Sorry, but one person in history did.

Assertion.

 

[tas8831]

Hmm... Brainwashing rather..

Ever seen the documentary "Jesus Camp"?

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is both.

Can't miss with that one.

On the rest of the post....show me.

 

[sfs]

it's possible that both chimp and human created about several milion years ago or even more. it's also possible that the creation event occured about 5000-10000 years ago (we have several evidences for that too). but for the sake of the argument i will agree with the radiometric dating for now.

So how does whichever model you pick say that the great majority of genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are the result of mutation? So far you haven't even specified a model. In other words, you've said nothing at all about creationism and the data.

those lines are specific kinds of ervs. they looks like in the same position but they arent. will you consider them as orthologous?

Yes, I know they're supposed to be ERVs. I want to know what the position of the lines means. Where's the sequence that's being compared? If they're not in the same positions, then they're not orthologous. If we can't tell whether they're in the same position, then we can't tell whether they're orthologous.