proving evolution as just a "theory"

[rjs330]

You might want keep such ironic observations to yourself.



Correct. The massive amount of evidence means we came from a common ancestor.



Again, you still don't comprehend common ancestry. Descendant populations never stop being what their ancestors were. A bird never stops being a theropod, an archosaur, an amniote, etc. Let me give you little list here:
--------------------------
Shiitake mushroom.
White truffle.
Bakers yeast.
All of these are fungi. Fungi and animals share common ancestry as Ophistokonts.
Opisthokont - Wikipedia

Lilac.
Apple tree.
Saguaro cactus.
All of these are plants. Plants and Ophistokonts are Eukaryotes who, along with Archaea and Bacteria, share common ancestry as Living Things.

Scarab beetle.
Tarantula.
Blue crab.
The beetle is an insect, the tarantula is an arachnid and the crab is a decopod, but all three of them share an arthropod common ancestor.

Scallop.
Humbolt squid.
Banana slug.
The same goes with these mollusks. While they are all very different, they all share a basal mollusk common ancestor.

I hope this has made common ancestry a bit more clear for you.

Ah more assumptions. Got it. Just cause scientists categorize stuff doesn't mean it came from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

I'll link it here, since I describe the basic premise in the first post Evolution Experiment: Creationists, Choose their Fate!
Basically put, people select 2 out of 6 possible traits they want to see an experimental population of a small crustacean species (one that matures and breeds very quickly), and once the time for the experiment to start looms, I tally the votes and make the 2 traits that get the most votes favorable to the reproduction of these creatures. Not only that, but I describe the experiment in great detail, and do it on a low enough budget that anyone that wants to do the experiment along with me can do so and see for themselves that I am not misrepresenting the results.

Although I am doing this for 10 years, they breed fast enough that the experimental and control populations could be noticeably distinct within just 2 years... based on the predictions of the theory of evolution.

Sadly, even though I made this experiment just for the benefit and participation of creationists, I actually had to open it to evolution supporters to because not a single creationist would participate.

So you've evolved new species of crustaceans?

 

[rjs330]

Your argument appears to be entirely circular (begging the question, as it were).

1) Similarities or common materials point to common design.
2) It is evidence of common design because common materials exist.

You're just assuming that which you are trying to demonstrate. And you've still failed to explain why a creator would be limited by said materials.

Conversely, if we look at something like evolution whereby we can reconstruct independent phylogenetic trees based on different data-sets (fossils, morphology, DNA sequences), we can get independent phylogenies that point to nested relationships of common ancestry. Now you're just going to counter that a creator just made things that way, but you still haven't explained why a creator would be constrained in making lifeforms that happen to have the appearance of evolution and shared ancestral relationships.

Interesting that you would say that. I don't see things having an appearance of evolution from a common ancestor. Not at all. I see things that have a common design. The creator chose all the right materials in order to create life here. The appearance of evolution from a common ancestor is man's invention. Doesn't make it true.

The creator chose the materials and apparently it works just fine after all these years.

 

[USincognito]

Ah more assumptions. Got it. Just cause scientists categorize stuff doesn't mean it came from a common ancestor.

I was really hoping you had more to contribute than hand waving. But since that appears to be the only tool in your box, that's what you're going to stick with I guess.

 

[USincognito]

Because the "evidence" is nothing but assumptions. That's how it works.

Repeatedly screaming "assumptions" after it has been explained to you that doing so does not actually address the evidence or make it go away is yet another sign that you have zero to contribute to a meaningful conversation.

 

[rjs330]

And here it is, the cycle of denialism.

I've already pointed you to resources to help you understand how scientific hypotheses and theories are formulated, and how they are tested. Others have already pointed you to evidence of how common ancestry is tested and evidenced. And I've further pointed you to examples of how common ancestry is actually an applied science, being used in the real world today on various avenues of scientific inquiry and problem solving.

But you just hand-wave it all away and go back to chanting the same mantra over and over.

You're stuck in a denial loop. And I suppose as a creationist, that's all you really have.

Same kind of loop you're in on the opposite side. Your denial of common design is based upon a non testable, non observed theory.

 

[rjs330]

No. From Scientific American:

Creationist Claim: Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.

Answer: This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time--changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant's studies of evolving beak shapes among Galpagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms--such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization--can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

It should be noted that the idea of falsifiability as the defining characteristic of science originated with philosopher Karl Popper in the 1930s. More recent elaborations on his thinking have expanded the narrowest interpretation of his principle precisely because it would eliminate too many branches of clearly scientific endeavor.

Awesome someone who actually admitted it was an assumption. An inference is we don't don't have an actual observed theory, so we interpret things which means we assume that what we find supports our theory. Actually what you found is a lot of different things. But none of it means a common ancestor of all living things.

 

[pitabread]

Same kind of loop you're in on the opposite side. Your denial of common design is based upon a non testable, non observed theory.

How about you actually demonstrate how "common design" is a scientifically viable concept, demonstrate a workable "common design" model and explain how it can substitute for current applications of applied evolutionary biology.

Take your time. I'll wait.

 

[pitabread]

Interesting that you would say that. I don't see things having an appearance of evolution from a common ancestor. Not at all. I see things that have a common design. The creator chose all the right materials in order to create life here.

This is a completely vacuous answer. I asked you to explain how these so-called common materials is evidence of common design and your answer basically amounts to "just because".

At this point it appears that your claims of "common design" has all the depth of a bumper-sticker slogan.

It's disappointing, but not unsurprising. It would be nice if creationists could one day demonstrate that these 'common design' rebuttals actually have some substance to them.

 

[pitabread]

An inference is we don't don't have an actual observed theory, so we interpret things which means we assume that what we find supports our theory.

It's more than just an assumption though. It's based on prediction of what would be expected if a hypothesis was true, and then observed confirmation of that prediction. If you re-read that bit you quoted, it quite clearly explains that.

But I suspect you'll have mentally filtered out that paragraph and will simply go back to chanting your usual mantra. That's my prediction anyway. :/

 

[expos4ever]

Awesome someone who actually admitted it was an assumption. An inference is we don't don't have an actual observed theory, so we interpret things which means we assume that what we find supports our theory. Actually what you found is a lot of different things. But none of it means a common ancestor of all living things.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

And I suspect I am not alone.

Are you intentionally misrepresenting what was said in Scientific American article?

 

[USincognito]

Same kind of loop you're in on the opposite side. Your denial of common design is based upon a non testable, non observed theory.

I know that Creationists are very, very dishonest and tend to pretend things were never posted, but I posted this list of problems for "common design" and you seem to have ignored them. Any chance you can actually address them?
-----------------------
Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?
Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?
Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?
Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?

Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.

 

[USincognito]

It's more than just an assumption though. It's based on prediction of what would be expected if a hypothesis was true, and then observed confirmation of that prediction. If you re-read that bit you quoted, it quite clearly explains that.

But I suspect you'll have mentally filtered out that paragraph and will simply go back to chanting your usual mantra. That's my prediction anyway. :/

Assumption Junction what's your function.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh, I do know. I'm just trying to see what you know. Or what you believe anyway.

Considering all you do is repeat yourself, it's tough to get any real information though.



So why is it possible to produce domesticated dog breeds from wolves, but apparently nothing beyond that? Why don't wolves breeding with other wolves only produce wolves?

I guess you really don’t understand biology.....

You must first breed for specific traits. Just as Asian people predominately only mated with People that had Asian like features. Eventually the genome became set in that type. It can’t be changed now except by mating with a different subspecies, my bad, race. Keep forgetting they classify us different than the rest of the animal kingdom. Wolves aren’t breeding for specific traits, nor for domestication. But had you bothered to read the fox domestication study that was done in Russia, you wouldn’t have so many questions.

I’m still waiting for you to answer why you choose to ignore the empirical observation of how new forms arise from interbreeding and promote mutation when every animal ever born was born with mutations. Yet Asian remains Asian and African African. The only time you even can get a change in subspecies, my bad race, is when those two mate. Your mutations can’t even cross the race border, let alone species border. And even if you have direct empirical data showing you how the race border is crossed, you ignore it. Not very scientific.

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?

Why would mother nature make vocal cords in humans and chimpanzees so different as to mimic creation?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?

Widespread genetic entropy across kinds?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I know that Creationists are very, very dishonest and tend to pretend things were never posted, but I posted this list of problems for "common design" and you seem to have ignored them. Any chance you can actually address them?
-----------------------
Why would a designer place 203,000 endogenous retroviruses in humans and chimpanzees in such a way as to mimic common descent?

He didn’t. Apparently you are confused as to what a retrovirus is. A foreign invader. You simply confuse the fact virus invade specific cells as meaning common descent. It’s why we are able to use virus’s in genetic modification targeting specific cells and specific sites.

Why would a designer place a broken GULO gene in all Haplorhine primates including humans?

No one ever claimed mutations were not harmful.

Why would a designer place a broken gene pathway for hind limb development in whales and dolphins?

Apparently flippers work just fine. That you think it’s broken because it doesn’t make a leg.......

Why would a designer place broken VTG genes for egg yolk sac development in therian (marsupial and placental) mammals?

We’ve been thru this, see above.

Evolution explains all of these things, "common design" does not.

Because you still haven’t accepted design. In true design one puts redundancy in, so when mutations break things, things work anyways. You simply confuse genes for making flippers is broken because it doesn’t make legs. But it was never intended to make legs and does do what it was meant to do just fine, make flippers.

Just as the gene that makes feathers, scales and hair is similar and is confused as meaning shared descent. Sorry, it just means common design.

Besides, wouldn’t that be devolving? Since flippers came long before legs?

 

[bhsmte]

I started off "after 911" This was a terrorist event. Do you want to join us in the real world or do you want to continue to be a part of a pretend make believe world. No need to answer that question because I already know what your answer will be.

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

My dad was a doctor for over 50 years. I remember after he retired and we were cleaning up his office I want through a folder that had his hand out in it. They were mostly printouts from articles that he felt would give enough information to be of use to his patience. For me this is where the rubber meets the road and you have a blow out or the tire holds air. When your sick and you go to a doctor what is he able to do to help you regain your health. Is he able to offer you something of substance that really helps you. Or does he give you nothing of any substance and nothing in the way of help.

This board seems to have a lot of people that offer a heavy dose of negativism that does nothing to help and most likely just makes the problem worse. They use to say you are a part of the problem or a part of the cure. My father and many people like him returned from WW2 and they spent their whole life trying to make this a better country and a better world. They had seen enough death and destruction during the war and they wanted life, health and prosperity.

Today there are to any obstructionists trying to get in the way of progress and tear down to destroy this world that we live in. I think that each and every individual needs to decide if they are going to be a part of the problem or a part of the cure. That is the choice everyone needs to make. We know in the end those who tear down and destroy will be destroyed. As Christians we believe we will be saved, healed and delivered from the destruction that is designed to cleanse this world. First by water in the days of Noah and now by fire in the lifetime of many people alive today.

Word salad.

 

[bhsmte]

The fact remains that Jesus was God Incarnate. The Creator became a part of His Creation. Even if we do not understand all the details of how He did that.

Demonstrate this fact, with objective/verifiable evidence.