proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

it's certainly not a model that's been proposed by It also completely contradicts the fossil record

how so? the first human (homo genus) is about 3 my old. fit pretty well with my estimation.

So now use this model to make predictions. That's how we test models, after all. (Remember, I predicted this observation we're talking about before seeing the data.)

what prediction? be specific.

If you make the same comparison between the human genome and the orangutan genome, what will you find?

that orangutan is more different then the chimp compare with human.

 

[xianghua]

This is the problem with trying to introduce the supernatural...you can literally claim anything you like...

same like evolution- "evolution did it". and since we have evidence for creation and not for evolution- the burden of proof is on evolutionists side.

 

[xianghua]

True, that can make it difficult. But we can check the living descendants of those creatures, and look at their DNA.

how it will help you at all? you just have a fossil without any DNA and with a mammal traits. how you can prove that it's the result of convergent evolution?

We can also look at the actual shape of the fossils. No one would suggest, for example, that the wings of birds and bats are anything other than convergent evolution.

many similar shape suppose to evolved by convergent evolution too. so it will not help. also many different traits suppose to be the result of common descent. so no, it will not help you in this case.

 

[xianghua]

If an Engineer designed a smartphone, therefore the repeated embedded functional states of that device will infer a unique designer.

we can also ask what if we will find a cell-phone with a self replicaition system. like a living thing.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I actually have a couple now, and you're right.. they do miscalculate lol.. I still however think that many animals and insects posses a level of intelligence

Well, sure, but you were suggesting that cats were doing physics equations in order to determine their jumps. Personally, that's not how I determine if I can make a jump or not. Heck, I'd have to have immense control over my body, and be aware of how many Newtons of force my legs can exert to even utilize the equation for that, and that's not information I know.

-_- basically, whether it's people jumping or cats jumping, whether or not a jump can be made is usually internally determined by past experiences and basic knowledge of one's own abilities. That, and practice.

 

[PsychoSarah]

how it will help you at all? you just have a fossil without any DNA and with a mammal traits. how you can prove that it's the result of convergent evolution?

Because the physiology of 2 organisms produced by convergent evolution is less similar to each other than if they shared recent ancestry. That is, they have structures with the same basic functions, but the physical shapes and positions of the anatomy will be distinct. Heck, differentiating between convergent evolution and recent shared ancestry is easier just with bones than, say, looking at pictures of living organisms.

many similar shape suppose to evolved by convergent evolution too. so it will not help.

I don't think you understand how dissimilar organisms produced via convergent evolution are.
Here's a good modern example; the marsupial mole and the European mole.

Note the differences in skull shape, their claw number, and even their spinal structure.

Yet, outwardly, they do appear more similar than one would usually expect from species this distant from each other, and they share very similar niches in their respective environments.

 

[xianghua]

.. well.. interesting that you'd ask that.. it leads me to some of my thoughts on directed evolution vs blind evolution...

actually those buds may be a degenerate flippers, as we can see here:

The dolphin with extra fins, 2 years on

so this isn't evidence for a common descent, and yet another fail prediction of evolution theory.

 

[pitabread]

and since we have evidence for creation

No, no you don't.

There is a reason why creationist arguments are generally arguments against evolution while assuming creation as a default position. There is a distinct lack of positive arguments for creation, which is emphasized by the utter lack of a coherent creation model (which you still have yet to provide despite people repeatedly asking you for it).

 

[PsychoSarah]

Can the object exist without the laws Or can the laws exist without the object?

You say that as if they couldn't influence each other. That is, that the "laws" would not have been the same if the universe had developed minus some matter, and the nature of matter itself would change if the "laws" did.

 

[Astrophile]

There is a signature pattern throughout all of creation called the Fibonacci pattern, This spiral is visible in things as diverse as: hurricanes, spiral seeds, the cochlea of the human ear, sea shells, snail shells, fingure print, ram's horn, sea-horse tail, growing fern leaves, DNA molecule, waves breaking on the beach, tornados, galaxies, the tail of a comet as it winds around the sun, whirlpools, seed patterns of sunflowers, daisies, dandelions, and in the construction of the ears of most mammals.

Now in the case of galaxies and planets, evolving due to evolution theory, one would see similar functional use on the surface, yet within the embeded detail of each galaxy and planets, we would need to see an infinite array of patterns that arrive at the functional surface level. This means that for evolution to be true, there must be an infinite array of patterns distinct from the Fibonacci pattern. The truth in the matter is that there are not.

Hurricanes, waves breaking on the beach, tornadoes, galaxies, the tails of comets, and whirlpools have nothing to do with evolution, which is a biological process. These phenomena are governed by the laws of gravitation and fluid dynamics, and presumably the appearance of a Fibonacci pattern is a mathematical consequence of these laws. Or are you asserting that God directly creates every hurricane and tornado, every breaking wave, every whirlpool and the tail of every comet so that it displays the Fibonacci pattern?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Hurricanes, waves breaking on the beach, tornadoes, galaxies, the tails of comets, and whirlpools have nothing to do with evolution, which is a biological phenomenon. These phenomena are governed by the laws of gravitation and fluid dynamics, and presumably the appearance of a Fibonacci pattern is a mathematical consequence of these laws. Or are you asserting that God directly creates every hurricane and tornado, every breaking wave, every whirlpool and the tail of every comet so that it displays the Fibonacci pattern?

Pfft, human brains are so pattern seeking that it'd be weird if we could observe a phenomenon without attaching a pattern to it.

 

[Allandavid]

same like evolution- "evolution did it". and since we have evidence for creation and not for evolution- the burden of proof is on evolutionists side.

That is simply untrue...

You have no evidence that points specifically to a 'creation event', whereas evolutionary processes have literally tons...

 

[Allandavid]

There's evidence that God exists, you may not understand it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Then if it is not possible for someone else to observe and understand, it's not evidence...it's an empty claim.

 

[PsychoSarah]

same like evolution- "evolution did it". and since we have evidence for creation and not for evolution- the burden of proof is on evolutionists side.

-_- in order for the situation you describe to be accurate, creationism would have to be the null hypothesis to evolution... but it's not. Disproving the theory of evolution wouldn't make creationism any more credible automatically.

-_- in fact, rather than waste your time trying to disprove evolution, shouldn't you be trying to provide evidence for creationism instead? You can disprove a theory AND support an opposing theory at the same time that way. Most scientific theories that have been discarded were because of a theory with stronger evidence taking their place.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Then if it is not possible for someone else to observe and understand, it's not evidence...it's an empty claim.

Whether or not a claim is true isn't based on your ability to understand it.

 

[MrAnderson9]

An explanation doesn't gain logical credibility merely from the absence of other explanations.

It could very well be that the laws and nature of the universe just exist and that there is no outside supernatural designer or intelligence. We may be searching for a cause where one need not apply in the first place.

It does. Logically it's the most logical conclusion. Until you can come up with another more logical conclusion it stands. Your bottom statement isn't logical.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Whether or not a claim is true isn't based on your ability to understand it.

No, but other people can't confirm it is true if there is no means of observation, the part you decided not to address.

 

[MrAnderson9]

Well, sure, but you were suggesting that cats were doing physics equations in order to determine their jumps. Personally, that's not how I determine if I can make a jump or not. Heck, I'd have to have immense control over my body, and be aware of how many Newtons of force my legs can exert to even utilize the equation for that, and that's not information I know.

-_- basically, whether it's people jumping or cats jumping, whether or not a jump can be made is usually internally determined by past experiences and basic knowledge of one's own abilities. That, and practice.

Ok.. so you're saying that you and cats take multiple factors into consideration before determining a possible outcome? Like a X amount of force.. multiplied by Y amount of distance.. at angle of Z.. = Jump calculation?

 

[pitabread]

It does. Logically it's the most logical conclusion.

Except that it's not a logical conclusion; it's just an assertion that isn't tied to its premise.

You have to demonstrate how you go from the premise to the conclusion, demonstrate how they are linked. If you can't do that, you don't have a logical argument. And so far you haven't done that.

Until you can come up with another more logical conclusion it stands. Your bottom statement isn't logical.

All you appear to have is a base assertion with no real argument to support it. And like many that have come before you, all you are doing now is engaging in repetition. Unfortunately, merely repeating something over and over doesn't make it valid.

When you come up with something more interesting, let me know.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It does.

I'm going to disagree with both you AND pitabread on this one, because I don't think the situation of "an explanation gaining logical credibility merely from the absence of other explanations" is even applicable. That is, I don't think there has ever been something for which there was only 1 explanation, nor do I think that just a single explanation existing would make it more likely to be correct (after all, there are limits on the understanding and imagination of our species, so the explanations we come up with could all be wrong).

Logically it's the most logical conclusion.

Redundantly redundant sentence that doesn't describe the all important "why". As in, explain why you think your conclusion is the most logical one.

Until you can come up with another more logical conclusion it stands.

You know that it is perfectly valid to not know why or how, as well as have no ideas on why or how, right?