proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

Obviously I have a different understanding to you, so how about explaining the genetic evidence that shows "man and apes" are unrelated?

Give a qualified person a blind sample of ape DNA and of human DNA. Teh will identify which one is from the ape and which ne is from the human.

Now give him the DNA from 2 apes and he will tell you they are both apes. Give him a sample of DNA from 2 humans and he will tell you they are both humans.

Now give him a sample of your DNA and my DNA. He will tell you we ar both human, but not related biologically.

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

 

[bhsmte]

Since you seem to be so eager to Google things, why don't you try Googling "Evidence for natural selection"?

evidence for natural selection - Google Search

That's the last time I'm going to do your homework for you.

Why would he do that? That would be scary.

 

[Jimmy D]

Give a qualified person a blind sample of ape DNA and of human DNA. Teh will identify which one is from the ape and which ne is from the human.

OK, first off instead of "apes" shall we say chimpanzees? It helps to be specific.

But yes, I'd agree with that.

Now give him the DNA from 2 apes and he will tell you they are both apes. Give him a sample of DNA from 2 humans and he will tell you they are both humans.

I'd agree with that too.

Now give him a sample of your DNA and my DNA. He will tell you we are both human, but not related biologically.

Yep. (Although technically we are distantly related, whether through Adam or through our ancient common ancestor)

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

I'm beginning to get a grasp on your understanding.

You said you have evidence that humans and "apes" are not related though, none of this addresses that and I'm not sure you understand the evidence that says we are.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

Seems so easy, yes. God made all things simple (easy to understand); man came up with many devices (dna is one of those).
Man's ways are not God's Way. Man's purposes are not God's Purpose.
Man's methods are opposed to God every day.

Man scrambles every day to pervert God's Way more and more, and to defend man's ways more and more, with changes as needed even every day to make up for what gets uncovered even every day - man's way does not work, but they won't give up.

Just by getting others to even think 'dna', man's ways have succeeded distracting from God's Way. Oh, not necessarily to fall for it entirely, not yet, but just enough to get one foot a little bit off the truth.... a little bit mis-directed.

 

[bhsmte]

Seems so easy, yes. God made all things simple (easy to understand); man came up with many devices (dna is one of those).
Man's ways are not God's Way. Man's purposes are not God's Purpose.
Man's methods are opposed to God every day.

Man scrambles every day to pervert God's Way more and more, and to defend man's ways more and more, with changes as needed even every day to make up for what gets uncovered even every day - man's way does not work, but they won't give up.

Just by getting others to even think 'dna', man's ways have succeeded distracting from God's Way. Oh, not necessarily to fall for it entirely, not yet, but just enough to get one foot a little bit off the truth.... a little bit mis-directed.

Dont worry, you can follow what you claim to be god's way, correct?

 

[Astrophile]

Give a qualified person a blind sample of ape DNA and of human DNA. Teh will identify which one is from the ape and which one is from the human.

Yes, if this person is given a sample of chimpanzee DNA and human DNA he or she will be able to tell which is which.

Now give him the DNA from 2 apes and he will tell you they are both apes. Give him a sample of DNA from 2 humans and he will tell you they are both humans.

If the person is given a sample of chimpanzee DNA and orang-utan DNA, he or she will not only be able to tell which is which but will be able to say which animal's DNA is more similar to human DNA.

Now give him a sample of your DNA and my DNA. He will tell you we are both human, but not related biologically.

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

It used to be said that everybody in Britain is descended from John of Gaunt (1340-1399). If this is true, the Queen, who is certainly descended from John of Gaunt, and I are about 20th cousins. If our expert was given a sample of my DNA and the Queen's DNA, would he or she be able to say whether we are related or only that we are both humans? See how difficult it is if you don't understand DNA.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

See how easy it is if you understand DNA?

(can't tell who stated this first, the quote function might be mis-aligned).
(edit: thx, fixed quote)
Still,
since no one understands dna like God does,
and since "fake news" is the order of the days we live in,
why believe "fake news" ?
Just seek God, and believe His Word .
That is the only "safe" ground.
Only God has the Words leading to Eternal LIfe in Jesus.
dna won't make any diffference, nor help to get there.

 

[Astrophile]

(can't tell who stated this first, the quote function might be mis-aligned).

You are right, the quote function was mis-aligned. I have now corrected the post.

 

[pitabread]

Also if you had and evidence to support evolution, you would be overjoyed to present it and show the creationist are wrong.

Look, I've been in these debates for over a decade now. And I can tell you that nobody ever changes their mind. At the end of the day, it is largely pointless since creationists are not actually looking for nor interested in scientific evidence. Like I already said, if you want evidence for evolution you'd already be off reading about it instead of wasting your time here. But you're not, so here you are.

Whenever presented with science, creationists just find ways to dismiss, hand-wave away or otherwise ignore it. As your next sentence demonstrates:

What is boring in this discussion is that the fundie evolutionist never present any real scientific evidence for what they accept by faith alone.

Since this is a lie. Plenty of scientific evidence gets presented, but creationists filter it out.

What's especially amazing to me is this even applies to examples of modern applications of the theory of evolution. It's always fascinating to watch some of the metal gymnastics creationists go through to avoid having to even acknowledge applied biological evolution; they're literally ignoring or denying real-world scientific application being performed as we speak.

At the end of the day, all of this discussion and debate is irrelevant. Creationists believe whatever they want to believe. And science marches on.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Look, I've been in these debates for over a decade now. And I can tell you that nobody ever changes their mind.

This so far has proven true except for one testimony (in ten or more years).
They actually DID NOT change their mind based on any information posted,
but saw all the various conflicts (from one particular group), and wondered about it and wanted to know the truth,
so they went off site and investigate it themselves.
Just like God says, they discovered the truth, since they were seeking the truth,
(not here/ not on a forum where it is not possible to figure out)
and they came back once at least to testify to what they had found.

So far, even with diligent and long searching and asking and posting to see if anyone was ever 'saved' from anything via a forum post/ content,
that has been the only testimony of someone who has come forward to say they had at least discovered the truth, though it was because of the negative stuff on the forum,
not any positive stuff, that they realized they had believed in error previously,
after they went (wherever they went) and found out. So, that's one person out of several forums ( I searched and asked) who was 'saved' from serious (usually and often fatal) error. (they were already saved in Christ for some years before this, before they ever used the internet)

 

[bhsmte]

Look, I've been in these debates for over a decade now. And I can tell you that nobody ever changes their mind. At the end of the day, it is largely pointless since creationists are not actually looking for nor interested in scientific evidence. Like I already said, if you want evidence for evolution you'd already be off reading about it instead of wasting your time here. But you're not, so here you are.

Whenever presented with science, creationists just find ways to dismiss, hand-wave away or otherwise ignore it. As your next sentence demonstrates:



Since this is a lie. Plenty of scientific evidence gets presented, but creationists filter it out.

What's especially amazing to me is this even applies to examples of modern applications of the theory of evolution. It's always fascinating to watch some of the metal gymnastics creationists go through to avoid having to even acknowledge applied biological evolution; they're literally ignoring or denying real-world scientific application being performed as we speak.

At the end of the day, all of this discussion and debate is irrelevant. Creationists believe whatever they want to believe. And science marches on.

You are correct. When people change their minds, it is when it is their idea. Beliefs that rely on faith, are typically tied to a personal psychological and emotional need and most of those folks just dig in and engage their defense mechanisms.

I fully expect people to have differing beliefs, what i find interesting, is how they justify their beliefs and how they treat and judge others, who disagree with them.

 

[xianghua]

Show us an example of two cars mating. Seriously, demonstrate where this is even remotely in the realm of reality.

there is no real different between a self replicating car and a self replicating creature in terms of complexity. so this analogy hold water.

 

[Belk]

there is no real different between a self replicating car and a self replicating creature in terms of complexity. so this analogy hold water.

There is a very large difference in terms of reality.

 

[xianghua]

I explained to you how animals are different from watches. But you just ignore everything I said and go back to your claim that everything that is true about watches must be true about animals.

Once again, animals are different from watches.

prove it. prove that a system that is ic in a creature can evolve stepwise when in non living thing its impossible. by the way (just as a note) english isnt my native so i may not understand some of your words.

 

[rjs330]

Patterns of similarities do. Specifically the patterns we would expect if organisms were related via common ancestry. And then we observe those very patterns.

You assume they are related as common ancestry. Similarities are not evidence of common ancestry and either are patterns. Unless of course you assume so.

 

[rjs330]

And by the way, please show me every ancestor of yours back to Adam, please.

I don't need to because as far back as we have any record of a human remains so. Your the one that says cats and humans came from the same ancestor. Please show the progression. It's your claim.

 

[bhsmte]

there is no real different between a self replicating car and a self replicating creature in terms of complexity. so this analogy hold water.

The reality that cars dont mate, would be considered a huge difference.

Of course, you have to ignore this reality though.

 

[Speedwell]

You assume they are related as common ancestry. Similarities are not evidence of common ancestry and either are patterns. Unless of course you assume so.

Similarities are predicted by and are consistent with the theory. Common ancestry is inferred, not assumed. There is no compelling alternative inference.

 

[pitabread]

You assume they are related as common ancestry. Similarities are not evidence of common ancestry and either are patterns. Unless of course you assume so.

The only real assumption here is that basic biological organisms and evolutionary mechanisms (which we observe today) also operated the same in the past. The patterns we observe are conditional on those mechanisms of evolutionary change operating as expected.

Since we have no reason to think biological organisms were fundamentally different in the past in terms of reproduction, DNA inheritance, etc, it's a pretty safe assumption. Everything we observe with respect to patterns in biology stems from that.

If you want to suggest there were fundamental differences in the past with respect to basic biology, then you need to demonstrate as such. But when I've pressed you for such answers previously, you came up empty.

At the moment, there are no alternatives except for biological evolution.

 

[pitabread]

there is no real different between a self replicating car and a self replicating creature in terms of complexity. so this analogy hold water.

That's not what I asked. I asked you to prove to me that cars can reproduce. Show me an example of that happening in the real world.