proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

Absolutely. Though it is not a comfort issue. It is a time management issue.

Then perhaps you should not make assertions that you will not have the time to support or explain.

 

[Jimmy D]

I intentionally avoid the political stuff too, but that is my REAL weakness, so it was easier to avoid. You guys have fun!

I don't blame you.

The politics forum is even more polarized than this one!

 

[Almost there]

And you just answered your own question.

No. I clarified the answer I gave earlier regarding the apparent assertion that Christians wanting to control everyone: "The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work."

Unless you were talking about followers of islam, which is both political and evangelical. Christianity is purely evangelical, though a community of Christians will affect their area's culture, as ALL people do, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Any test result or discovery that forces a change to any theory.

So... "making progress" and "learning" is.... "biting them"?

Strange. I was under the impression that whenever scientists make progress and learn new things, that's when the bottles of champagne are opened and Nobel prizes are handed out.

 

[Almost there]

Then perhaps you should not make assertions that you will not have the time to support or explain.

Which is why I'm outa here. You guys have fun. I hope you solve this before I die and can let me know who "won".

 

[Almost there]

So... "making progress" and "learning" is.... "biting them"?

Strange. I was under the impression that whenever scientists make progress and learn new things, that's when the bottles of champagne are opened and Nobel prizes are handed out.

That happens too. But what is forgotten is that, though the discoveries are wonderful, over time they have altered the whole concept of evolution to the point that it has very little in common with the original theory. It's because the original theory was based on massive ignorance.

And 50 years from now you can count on our current knowledge being seen similarly.

...if the Lord waits...

 

[DogmaHunter]

of course. they believe in evolution anyway. i never said otherwise.

So you link to papers to make a point, while the papers don't agree with that point at all, on purpose?

Owkay.

i gave this evidence to prove that there is no realy nested hierarchy in nature.

Yet, the evidence you gave, says the exact opposite.....
I can give you a sphere and call it a cube, but.......

and this is exactly what we found:

you can see the distribution of the "alx3" gene. its clearly non hierarchical and the author try so "solve" this by convergent loss.

Maybe you should leave it to the experts and not pretend to know better as a layman.

 

[tas8831]

Which is why I'm outa here. You guys have fun. I hope you solve this before I die and can let me know who "won".

I already know who won - and it is not the people that rely on bible verses, assertions, and puffing up their own credentials and claimed 'knowledge' to claim victory.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That happens too. But what is forgotten is that, though the discoveries are wonderful, over time they have altered the whole concept of evolution to the point that it has very little in common with the original theory.

That's not really accurate... But it doesn't matter.

When we refer to evolution, we're talking 21st century knowledge. Not the theory that Darwin came up with. We do the same with gravity. Did you know that Newton's model was actually wrong? Einstein corrected him.

Why would you dwell on knowledge of decades or even centuries ago?
Darwin didn't even know about DNA - he just predicted "some mechanism" by which modified traits could be passed on to off spring. Obviously there was a lot he didn't know.

How is any of this relevant to 21st century scientific knowledge?

It's because the original theory was based on massive ignorance.

Yet, it didn't stop Darwin from figuring out Natural Selection (because that's actually the thing he's remembered for, you know...)

And 50 years from now you can count on our current knowledge being seen similarly.

Yea. Isn't science great?

...if the Lord waits...

Uhu.

 

[tas8831]

That happens too. But what is forgotten is that, though the discoveries are wonderful, over time they have altered the whole concept of evolution to the point that it has very little in common with the original theory. It's because the original theory was based on massive ignorance.

And 50 years from now you can count on our current knowledge being seen similarly.

That is baloney.


The original theory was built upon evidence collected over the course of decades, and the current theory differs primarily in the specific mechanisms (Darwin did not know about genetics - as it had not really been invented as a field yet, and it would be almost another 100 years before we even knew the structure of DNA).

...if the Lord waits...

... for his followers to stop relying on 'God works in mysterious ways' and making assertions that they cannot support or explain.

But forgive me for not accepting that an IT data miner is not the ultimate authority on all matters scientific...

 

[Justatruthseeker]

As I said: everyone has no-white ancestors. You, me, everyone. This is simply a fact.

Not in dispute. The how is.

I am 99.99% western European, and the 0.01% left was DNA they couldn't read. Genetics tests are really interesting!

Then what makes yo certain that .01% in non white since they couldn’t read it?

"...a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding. The species is the principal natural taxonomic unit, ranking below a genus and denoted by a Latin binomial, e.g., Homo sapiens."

A good definition of Kind as well.

So since we agree on the definition you would agree that those Finches which are exchanging genes or interbreeding, are incorrectly labeled as separate species, right? After all, this is the definition you seem to agree with, or are you not so sure after all?

 

[tas8831]

No. I clarified the answer I gave earlier regarding the apparent assertion that Christians wanting to control everyone: "The people doing the oppressing insist that they are doing God's work."

What - you don't think that is true?

This is not all about you, you know.

We have evangelicals on a daily basis insisting that Trump is basically God's own representative on earth (Jim Bakker, Franklin Graham, Falwell, etc.), and supporting things like the Muslim ban and all manner of anti-social ideas from the current admin.


They don't care that some guy on the internet has found a bible verse that is contrary - they can find bible verses supporting whatever they want.

Unless you were talking about followers of islam, which is both political and evangelical. Christianity is purely evangelical, though a community of Christians will affect their area's culture, as ALL people do, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Ah, so you are the ultimate authority on what Christianity is and is not as well.

I guess all those Christian Nationalists out there are not real Christians - yet here you are telling biologists that they are wrong about biology instead of correcting these power-mad Christians.

 

[Almost there]

I already know who won - and it is not the people that rely on bible verses, assertions, and puffing up their own credentials and claimed 'knowledge' to claim victory.

Opinions vary.

 

[Almost there]

That's not really accurate... But it doesn't matter.

Well, it's not precise, I'll give you that. I was only going for "generally speaking", though.

 

[tas8831]

Opinions vary.

And not all opinions are valid.

I support my claims.

I don't run off, claiming not enough time, then spend another 20 minutes writing more posts.

You've been reduced to tangential one-liners.

No longer worth the effort to respond.

 

[tas8831]

A good definition of Kind as well.

Kind=species.

Congrats (again) - you sunk the ark!

 

[Almost there]

What - you don't think that is true?

This is not all about you, you know.

We have evangelicals on a daily basis insisting that Trump is basically God's own representative on earth (Jim Bakker, Franklin Graham, Falwell, etc.), and supporting things like the Muslim ban and all manner of anti-social ideas from the current admin.


They don't care that some guy on the internet has found a bible verse that is contrary - they can find bible verses supporting whatever they want.




Ah, so you are the ultimate authority on what Christianity is and is not as well.

I guess all those Christian Nationalists out there are not real Christians - yet here you are telling biologists that they are wrong about biology instead of correcting these power-mad Christians.

The muslim ban is a good thing. I've said since 9/11 that Islam should be treated the same as the German Bund was treated during WWII. Islam is completely incompatible with the constitution of the US. It should not be treated as a religion, but as the political entity it is, and the US should be at war with this political entity. A simple reading of the Quran answers all the questions on this. But this is definitely the wrong thread to get into this.

 

[Almost there]

And not all opinions are valid.

I support my claims.

I don't run off, claiming not enough time, then spend another 20 minutes writing more posts.

You've been reduced to tangential one-liners.

No longer worth the effort to respond.

Don't worry, They are short posts. No mental energy is necessary.

I've unfollowed the thread. As the trickle of responses to me goes away, so will I.

(hint, hint)

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Odd, then, that you have failed to show evolution to be false.

Guess it is not so easy.

But I have.

You just refuse to accept dogs for what they are. The largest, most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment performed. The results of which falsify evolution to its very core.

I have not commented on the Huskies issue, you seem to be easily confused.

Why would you, it disproves your theory.

That was hilarious.


Sure, there was a great flood (funny that ALL civilizations that arise next to water have flood myths...) - but no mention of God... Or any of the other bible people or stories - and no mention of China in the bible.
And you want to accuse others of inventing stories?

Again - hilarious.

And so cool that you goggled this and found a creationist tall tale to support you.

No different than your tale of them migrating from the Middle East to China. You only got the starting point off by a few thousand miles, but they were close.

Even more hilarious - 100% speculation presented as an alternative "explanation" to another hilarious bit of nonsense.

About as hilarious as one race becoming another through mutation, when you have only observed a new race come about from mating.... but empericial evidence of real life is not evolutions strong point.

"Descendants of Ham included the Egyptians and Sumerians, who founded the first two great empires of antiquity, as well as other great nations such as the Phoenicians, Hittites, and Canaanites. The modern African tribes and the Mongol tribes (including today the Chinese and Japanese), as well as the American Indians and the South Sea Islanders, are probably dominantly Hamitic in origin."

Pure, unadulterated, 100% unsupported assertion - no evidence at all!

More evidence than you got that mutations did it, since Africans remain Africans despite mutations.

Again, you accuse US of making things up?

You have, that new races come about by mutation, when the observational data contradicts you.

What else did Henry Morris, PhD, Christian minister and creationist, say about the 'Hamites'?

Oh yes -


"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites..."

Henry Morris, "The beginning of the World", 1991.

Looks like ol' Henry was a bit of a white supremacist...



Your beliefs, as seen in what you provide as evidence, have no support.

YOU claim a concrete, discreet group of real individual ancestors for all humanity - Adam and eve, then a major population bottleneck of 4 inbreeding pairs (the flood), followed by a re-population and re-diversification of all of humanity in ~4500 years, and the best you can muster is some laughable assertions and wild extrapolations.

We don't NEED a specific common ancestor to draw rigorous genetic, biogeographic, and fossil-based conclusions.

We don't need to google every time we come across a word or concept that we should know having 'debated' these issues for years.

We don't need to put 100% unquestioning, unyielding faith in the claims that we do not understand put out by a collection of websites and gurus in order to 'argue' for our cause.

So please do not project your own shortcomings onto others. it is unbecoming.

And by the way - you did not even try to address my questions -

So which of Noah's sons or daughters-in-law was Asian?

How did this Asian meet up with a middle eastern man/woman in these ancient times?

How did the Asian "allies" get repressed, then somehow later down the line, post-flood, when Asia was finally habitable again, did people from Ararat migrate there, mate, and have just their 'Asia' "allies" recombine to produce Asians from a middle eastern/Asian amalgam, since after all you claim with such confidence that 'And will never change an Asian into any other race..'


Evidence for this magical genetic assertion.

And yet how does a random genetic mutation fix itself in the population if not from descent? So the population must even in your fantasy be descended from two.

Oh that’s right, a random genetic mutation in me will randomly cause the same mutation in the rest of the population. Riiiiiight.[/quote][/quote]

 

[tas8831]

delete