proving evolution as just a "theory"

[sfs]

You see the predictions themselves are assumptions.

A prediction can't be an assumption. Whatever process goes into making a prediction, in the end is a prediction: we're going to see the following.

How do we know that if evolution is true we would find certain things.

Because they follow from the model. We know that mutational processes are similar across, say, mammals. By definition, common descent means that humans and chimpanzees used to have identical DNA; the theory of evolution posits that all genetic change is ultimately the result of mutation. So the genetic differences between humans and chimps should look like mutations if the model is correct.

Put more simply, I actually made the prediction based on common descent. And the prediction was correct. You can't predict anything about DNA based on your belief. Why can I predict things and you can't? That's a pretty odd state of affairs if you're right and all I'm doing is making assumptions and suppositions. How would assumptions lead to correct predictions, anyway? Are you sure you've thought through this argument?

 

[sfs]

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?

We agree that genetic differences between individual humans are the result of mutations; that's the assumption I made in my prediction. Creationism doesn't say that differences between humans and chimpanzees are the result of mutations, since that would mean that humans and chimps used to have the same genome, which means they were the same species -- which is just a re-statement of common descent.

 

[essentialsaltes]

All blue-eyed people have one ancestor in common, born around 6,000-10,000 years ago.

Blue eyes are caused by a gene mutation. For years, researchers had searched for it on the OCA2 gene.

The OCA2 gene determines how much brown pigment is in our eyes. But what they were looking for wasn't there at all.

The mutation was found on an entirely different gene called HERC2. HERC2 turns off OCA2, meaning it turns off the brown and reveals the blue. Every blue-eyed person has this exact same mutation.

This shouldn't bother the science-deniers. The timescale is more or less okay, and no cats give birth to dogs.

And yet.

And yet, at the same time, this is the exact same sort of evidence that shows we and the chimpanzees have an ancestor in common. And we and the gorillas have an ancestor in common. And we and the lions, and echidnas, and skinks, and trout, and sponges have an ancestor in common.

 

[Allandavid]

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.

In the same way that the hole just happens to be designed for the puddle...

 

[Allandavid]

Like T. Roseae?

And like chromosome 2 in humans...

 

[USincognito]

How about common manufacturer?
Couldn't you have come up with that yourself?

Awesome. Now all you need to do to turn that from an ad hoc and unscientific slogan is explain things like:
- Chimpanzees and humans sharing 203,000 endogenous retroviral insertions.
- All haplorhines, including humans, sharing a broken GULO gene that is broken the exact same way.
- Whales having the Sonic Hedgehog (yes, that's a real gene)/Hand2 pathway for hind limb development if they never had hind limbs according to Creationists.
- All Therian mammals having pseudogenes for forming egg yolk sacs.
- Etc.

 

[USincognito]

No.
Evolution as in the origins of species is historical, astronomy is looking at the present.
You know this.

Is conducting stellar spectroscopy on a star that is 150,000 light years away "historical" or "operational" science?

 

[Allandavid]

Alas, they hear what they want to hear, just as people see what they want to see...what got this whole mess started.

No...I want proof, proof positive. Show your proof and explain how it proves evolution. I ask you to explain because awhile back, before I started refusing to go off site to read this or that, and insisting we do it all here, a poster sent me to a site, and I had no idea how the paper proved evolution.

It wasn't a matter of understanding it either, I simply couldn't see it....he went ballistic and never explained. One thing I've noticed here, is when some are forced to explain, they look again, and I really believe they themselves begin to see the holes in it and they just kind of go away. Not always but I have seen it.

Show me how you can provide "proof positive" for any theory in science...!

You set an impossible challenge for just one theory only....I wonder why....

 

[Allandavid]

And that proves evolution is more than a theory?

In science, there is nothing "more than" a theory...

 

[USincognito]

Because the ToE has no God, no intelligence in it as a factor.
It's naturalism = the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted.

Interesting. Meteorology has no God and no intelligence in it as a factor. Do you similarly have a problem with meteorology, or just evolution?
Plate tectonics has no God and no intelligence in it as a factor. Do you similarly have a problem with plate tectonics, or just evolution?
Germ theory of disease has no God and no intelligence in it as a factor. Do you similarly have a problem with germ theory, or just evolution?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

Hello sorry for the lateness of the reply.

Why only quote part of my post and ignore the part where I answered your question?

Please excuse me my dear. I mean no offense

I am certain that common descent is a fact. The theory of evolution explains it, although the explanation may not be entirely complete, there is always more to learn.

It would seem that you are certain here and uncertain there.

This is good. You are honest. Some things are not certain and sometimes you just have to have complete trust or confidence in someone or something - the theory of evolution.

This is good. It shows conviction.

Back to the giraffe. We cannot know things which atm are unknowable but we can investigate things which are known.

"When the animal lowers its head the blood rushes down fairly unopposed and a rete mirabile in the upper neck, with its large cross sectional area, prevents excess blood flow to the brain.

When it raises again, the blood vessels constrict and direct blood into the brain so the animal does not faint."

This lowering and raising seems to have a safety mechanism. This seems like a solution to a problem.

How do you account for this 'reasoning' if we consider evolution as an unguided process?

 

[Waggles]

Another fun fact: dead people don't rise from graves.

Sorry, but one person in history did.

 

[Waggles]

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

What a load of bunk.
Everything declares the creation. It is self evident and marvellous except to the blind and fools.

 

[Allandavid]

What a load of bunk.
Everything declares the creation. It is self evident and marvellous except to the blind and fools.

That is as meaningless as claiming that "everything declares planet-making fairies", or "everything declares the magnificence of Krishna". That our world exists is self evident. How it came to be the way it is requires evidence...

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

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

Hey allendavid. Is that you!!!
Im curious since waggles has brought our attention to it.

What type of proof would u accept?

 

[Allandavid]

Hey allendavid. Is that you!!!
Im curious since waggles has brought our attention to it.

What type of proof would u accept?

By " proof" I assume you mean 'evidence'...

What have you got? After all, you are the people making the claim that the earth and the cosmos were created in a particular way. Where's your evidence...?

 

[_-iconoclast-_]

By " proof" I assume you mean 'evidence'...

What have you got? After all, you are the people making the claim that the earth and the cosmos were created in a particular way. Where's your evidence...?

The evidence has always been based on faith. God is not a 'thing' bound to the laws of the universe He created or a 'thing' in the natural universe.

For instance. A brick layer building a house and then bricking Himself in.

The proof for God is faith, love and hope. Would you follow the formula to acheive the evidence?

 

[Allandavid]

The evidence has always been based on faith. God is not a 'thing' bound to the laws of the universe He created or a 'thing' in the natural universe.

For instance. A brick layer building a house and then bricking Himself in.

The proof for God is faith, love and hope. Would you follow the formula to acheive the evidence?

Then there is no evidence. 'Faith', by its very nature, exists regardless of evidence. Read your bible, it plainly says so.

If that's all you have underpinning your particular creation story, then it holds no more truth than the 40 or 50 others that mankind has invented throughout history...

 

[xianghua]

We agree that genetic differences between individual humans are the result of mutations; that's the assumption I made in my prediction. Creationism doesn't say that differences between humans and chimpanzees are the result of mutations,

not necessarily. the difference can be the result of neutral mutations+ functional difference as the result of design. it's means that some differences are neutral and some are not.


this is your evidence for a common descent?

 

[xianghua]

And like chromosome 2 in humans...

the chromosomal fusion is evidence for a common descent?