proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

Calling genetics evidence of evolution from a common ancestor is based upon the presumptive idea that evolution from a common ancestor is true. It an assumption that states Evolution is true therefore genetics is evidence that evolution is true. Really all genetics only shows common design. You must have evidence beyond that which shows the theory to be accurate. And we don't all we have is assumption. That all things have the same building blocks of life is only evidence of common design. It is not evidence we all came from the same ancestor unless you believe we all came from a common ancestor.

That we diverged from fish is an assumption. There is no evidence of that actually occurring.

It is not an "assumption." It is a reasonable inference from the information at hand.

 

[rjs330]

i dont need to. i only showed why such a fossil will not falsify evolution.




actually it did, since a car will never evolve into an airplane.




here is one of toys:

vechiales phylogeny - Google Search:

Actually cars did evolve into airplanes. You see there are so many commonalities between cars and airplanes and airplanes are more complex than cars we can say airplanes evolved from cars. Just look at the engines and note the materials and the way they operate it's obvious they evolved from cars.

 

[rjs330]

It is not an "assumption." It is a reasonable inference from the information at hand.

It's only reasonable if you believe in evolution without any other evidence of evolution. We have no other evidence that we came from a common ancestor. There are no fossils no observations and no way to observe or test it.

Genomic evidence is only evidence of common design. That all life has commonalities. The assumption is those commonalities verify evolution. In reality it really does not. The rejection of common design is based upon the thought that common design is wring and evolution is right. It is not based upon observation or testing or any other fossil evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

It's only reasonable if you believe in evolution without any other evidence of evolution. We have no other evidence that we came from a common ancestor. There are no fossils no observations and no way to observe or test it.

Genomic evidence is only evidence of common design. That all life has commonalities. The assumption is those commonalities verify evolution. In reality it really does not. The rejection of common design is based upon the thought that common design is wring and evolution is right. It is not based upon observation or testing or any other fossil evidence.

Common ancestry is a reasonable inference from the observed process of speciation. If speciation occurs repeatedly (and we know that it does) it is reasonable to project the process back to a single original species. Genetic evidence is consistant with this projection, as is the fossil record. None of which rules out a "common designer" behind it all. The problem with proposing "common design" as an alternative to evolution is that even if it is consistant with the genetic evidence, it lacks a mechanism.

 

[BradB]

It is accurate. You have been supplied the information, but i do understand, it is way too painful for you to acknowledge. Hence, the need for blinders.

If I respond to the information provided with adequate explanations pointing out how that information does not support what it claims in light of alternate explanations... then your comment is not accurate at all.

 

[BradB]

No, you don't. There isn't one relevant scientist in the creation franchise.

Well here's some that I'm sure you will find irrelevant along with their irrelevant publications.

Grant Lambert biochemist (and creationist)“Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]: He states that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would be completely overcome by incredibly high numbers of errors. However the editing enzymes are made themselves by DNA. This is an incredible argument for design. Lambert never openly exclaims his creationist world veiwpoint and leaves the readers in a dilemma as an unresolved problem in biologic theory (p.401), and I am sure that for this reason many of my oponants here wont count his paper, but by all reasonable standards it is countable.

D. Axe "Estimating the prevalence of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds." (Journal of Molecular Biology), Vol. 341 (2004): 1295-1315. His study found that functional protein folds are extremely rare, only about "one in 1064 signature consistent sequences forms a working domain and that the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 1077." Axe's conclusion is that "functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences." And because evolution theory says that only organism with a functional advantage are preserved, his study shows how difficult it would be for such a blind mechanism to produce functional protein folds. The study also demonstrates that there are high levels of very specific and complex structures in enzymes, a predicted indicator of intelligent design. Conformation that this study adds to the evidence for intelligent design has even been made by Axe himself in other interviews. But again, in the actual paper he does not wave his creationist banner high and mention creationism or intelligent design for that matter for obvious reasons.

Michael J. Behe & David W. Snoke "Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues," (Protein Science), Vol 13:2651-2664 (2004).

John Bracht, CiteSeerX "Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design,"

John Bracht, Metanexus “The Bacterial Flagellum: A Response to Ursula Goodenough,” Views, 2003.01.16.

Stephen Meyer “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” , PROCEEDINGS OF THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON 117 (2004): 213-239.

Lönnig, W. “Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity,” DYNAMICAL GENETICS (2004), pp. 101-119.

William A. Dembski THE DESIGN INFERENCE: ELIMINATING CHANCE THROUGH SMALL PROBABILITIES, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

Scott Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer “Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits,” , Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Design & Nature, Rhodes Greece, edited by M.W. Collins and
C.A. Brebbia (WIT Press, 2004).

Meyer, S. C DNA and the origin of life: Information, specification and explanation, in Darwinism, Design, & Public Education, .(Michigan State University Press, 2003), Pp. 223-285

Lönnig, W.-E. Dynamic genomes, morphological stasis and the origin of irreducible complexity, Dynamical Genetics, Pp. 101-119.

Jonathan Wells "Do Centrioles Generate a Polar Ejection Force?," , Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 98 (2005): 37-62.

A. Voie, "Biological function and the genetic code are interdependent," Chaos, Solitons and Fractals, Vol 28(4) (2006): 1000-1004.

David L. Abel & Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

S.C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2) (2004): 213-239.

W.-E. Lönnig & H. Saedler, "Chromosome Rearrangements and Transposable Elements," Annual Review of Genetics, 36 (2002): 389-410.

​

 

[BradB]

No it isn't. Why would a world wide flood resort in any kind of sorting. It should have all different kinds of creatures at the same layer.

Layers get laid down covering less mobile (more primitive) organisms while the more mobile scurry out and the next layer comes in over and over until only the most mobile organisms make to the top and are finally covered over and succumb.

 

[bhsmte]

If I respond to the information provided with adequate explanations pointing out how that information does not support what it claims in light of alternate explanations... then your comment is not accurate at all.

Let us know when you present those explanations.

 

[Belk]

Layers get laid down covering less mobile (more primitive) organisms while the more mobile scurry out and the next layer comes in over and over until only the most mobile organisms make to the top and are finally covered over and succumb.

1) Less primitive does not mean less mobile.
2) Unless this was the slowest flood in history more mobile creatures are not going to get out of it's way.
3) The global flood would be one layer.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well here's some that I'm sure you will find irrelevant along with their irrelevant publications.

Grant Lambert /snip/


D. Axe /snip/​

Couldn't find anything on the first fellow, and could only find this on the second fellow.

Douglas Axe - RationalWiki

As I stated previously, finding a supposed unknown in the ToE does not make another argument right. You've got to prove your case with evidence, not with what you perceive to be a shortcoming of another well established theory. This is what the creation franchise types won't tell you, and why these arguments look so pathetic to the rest of us.

 

[BradB]

Let us know when you present those explanations.

Okay this is me letting you know.

How about to save time we back up and you tell me what main thing you feel I have not presented an explanation for and we can revisit it?

 

[BradB]

Couldn't find anything on the first fellow, and could only find this on the second fellow.

Douglas Axe - RationalWiki

As I stated previously, finding a supposed unknown in the ToE does not make another argument right. You've got to prove your case with evidence, not with what you perceive to be a shortcoming of another well established theory. This is what the creation franchise types won't tell you, and why these arguments look so pathetic to the rest of us.

I am not "proving an argument" by the list with the exception that there do exist actual scientists in support of Intelligent Design.

 

[HitchSlap]

I am not "proving an argument" by the list with the exception that there do exist actual scientists in support of Intelligent Design.

The first two articles you cited don't support/prove/claim intelligent design. That's my point. All creationists have done is glom onto a study they think somehow is problematic for ToE. It's dishonest creationism 101 tactics.

 

[Jimmy D]

Grant Lambert biochemist (and creationist)“Enzymic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Biological Information Transfer,” (Journal of Theoretical Biology, 107 [1984]: He states that without editing enzymes, primitive DNA replication, transcription, and translation would be completely overcome by incredibly high numbers of errors. However the editing enzymes are made themselves by DNA. This is an incredible argument for design. Lambert never openly exclaims his creationist world veiwpoint and leaves the readers in a dilemma as an unresolved problem in biologic theory (p.401), and I am sure that for this reason many of my oponants here wont count his paper, but by all reasonable standards it is countable.

What makes you think that this fellow is a creationist? And what’s p.401 referring to? I’d like to read it myself rather than take “your” word for it.

 

[HitchSlap]

What makes you think that this fellow is a creationist? And what’s p.401 referring to? I’d like to read it myself rather than take “your” word for it.

Good luck. I couldn't find this guy or anything more than a description of the article.

 

[bhsmte]

Okay this is me letting you know.

How about to save time we back up and you tell me what main thing you feel I have not presented an explanation for and we can revisit it?

You have presented zero scientific evidence, that refutes the theory of evolution. The handful of quack scientists you list are just that, quacks and they are not using science to refute anything either. Take a look at the transcripts from the dover trial, when michael behe was the star witness for the id proponents. He was thoroughly exposed and had to admit under oath, if id is science, than astrology would also be considered science.

 

[ruthiesea]

The problem is that all cases presented here are predicated only on the kind of change that creationists likewise fully accept and acknowledge (with the exception of how the changes occurred). They do not rely on the notion that all life has a common ancestor.

You asked how evolution was useful to medicine and I found out for you. Common ancestor is a basic principle of evolution. All life evolved from the first living cell. You should ask the question that you want answered.

 

[ruthiesea]

Calling genetics evidence of evolution from a common ancestor is based upon the presumptive idea that evolution from a common ancestor is true. It an assumption that states Evolution is true therefore genetics is evidence that evolution is true. Really all genetics only shows common design. You must have evidence beyond that which shows the theory to be accurate. And we don't all we have is assumption. That all things have the same building blocks of life is only evidence of common design. It is not evidence we all came from the same ancestor unless you believe we all came from a common ancestor.

That we diverged from fish is an assumption. There is no evidence of that actually occurring.

As all living organisms have common genes indicates and supports common ancestry. It is testable prediction made by the theory. It gives no indication of a designer, except to those who already believe that there is a designer.

As research is directed as invalidating theories and conclusions, there is no preconceived presumptive ideas. That is done by creationists/IDers. Trying to prove conclusions is the primary indication of pseudoscience.

 

[ruthiesea]

iam trying to prove to a friend that the christian way is the true way but he tells me to give an explanation of evolution and dinosaurs.

any things i could say to prove him wrong?

love
camila smith <3

I don't know if you're still following this thread, but you don't have to prove that evolution is a theory, because that is what it is: a valid scientific theory. The word "just" indicates an ignorance of science and what a theory is.

 

[Job 33:6]

No I said that the less advanced life is often found in the deeper strata layers and the more advanced shows up in the upper layers, which is what you would expect to find if they had all been deposited in one world wide global flood. However you made the claim that they are not found this way and you expected me to prove you wrong. That's not how it works. You get to prove your case. I will be more than happy to support mine but I won't run around trying to disprove yours.

you made a claim that simple life is in lower layers and more advanced life is in upper layers, but this just isnt true. Im asking you to justify your statement.