The evidence for Evolution.

[sfs]

Is that scientific conclusion opinion or fact?

It's fact. Scientific conclusions are admissible in court as facts, for example. The problem with your distinction between "opinions" and "facts" is that facts can be viewed as nothing but opinions that we have good evidence to believe are true. And since you aren't interested in dealing with the evidence for these facts, for you these will always be opinions. The problem isn't with the strength of the evidence: it's with your refusal to look at it.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It's fact. Scientific conclusions are admissible in court as facts, for example. The problem with your distinction between "opinions" and "facts" is that facts can be viewed as nothing but opinions that we have good evidence to believe are true. And since you aren't interested in dealing with the evidence for these facts, for you these will always be opinions. The problem isn't with the strength of the evidence: it's with your refusal to look at it.

I've listened to what you call evidence many a time, so to say I'm not interested is simply not true. I still feel the end conclusions do not equate to fact.

If it is fact as you say, please show me where it has been deemed fact in the courts?

This is the comment in question, the one you say is fact:

Then give us a scientific reason for rejecting the conclusion that ERVs shared by humans and chimps at the same location in both genomes came from a common ancestor. Show us why this is not a valid scientific conclusion.

If it has not been deemed a legal fact, your comment has no bearing on the conversation unless of course you intend to take it to court to see, something that is unlikely to happen, as well as unlikely to be decided upon as opinion or fact, putting is right back to your comment being null.

 

[sfs]

I've listened to what you call evidence many a time, so to say I'm not interested is simply not true.

You say you're not interested in whether there are any explanations for the evidence, other than the obvious scientific one. To me, that means you are not interested in whether the conclusions are true or not.

I still feel the end conclusions do not equate to fact.

Going by your feelings is a lousy way to determine what's a fact. To tell whether a claim is true or not, you have to examine the evidence and weigh possible explanations for it. But that's exactly what you say you're not interested in doing.

If it has not been deemed a legal fact, your comment has no bearing on the conversation

Sure it does. My point was that courts accept the conclusions of scientific experts -- backed by the consensus of the scientific community -- as facts all the time. What you're being told is the consensus conclusion of the expert scientific community. In court, that would be accepted as evidence, regardless of whether this particular point has been brought into court or not. The only reason you state for rejecting these conclusions is that you feel otherwise. That leaves nothing to discuss or debate, since you offer no evidence to support your feeling.

 

[Kenny'sID]

You say you're not interested in whether there are any explanations for the evidence, other than the obvious scientific one. To me, that means you are not interested in whether the conclusions are true or not.

IOW, if I don't agree the explanations render the opinions fact, I am not interested. And yes,that is exactly what you're saying.

Going by your feelings is a lousy way to determine what's a fact. To tell whether a claim is true or not, you have to examine the evidence and weigh possible explanations for it. But that's exactly what you say you're not interested in doing.

What do you mean? They feel they are fact and that's ok...right? Are you even thinking before you speak? Maybe you are reading entirely too much into the term "feel" but if that works for you, why not? eh?

I'm not talking some cosmic feeling. To feel=hold an opinion, just as you/they do. You know, making these desperate, much ado about nothings, happens way to much in these conversations...surly you have enough valid arguments that you shouldn't have to do that?

If you want to insist I didn't listen to the evidence, or what in their opinion is evidence, you can pretend that all day long...I'm getting a bit tired of saying I did so think what you like. Evidently you are so certain if I did listen I would agree so agreeing is the only proof you will have that I listened, otherwise I did not in your mind. "Say we are right or you didn't listen". See, that's just out there.

Sure it does. My point was that courts accept the conclusions of scientific experts -- backed by the consensus of the scientific community -- as facts all the time. What you're being told is the consensus conclusion of the expert scientific community. In court, that would be accepted as evidence, regardless of whether this particular point has been brought into court or not. The only reason you state for rejecting these conclusions is that you feel otherwise. That leaves nothing to discuss or debate, since you offer no evidence to support your feeling.

I didn't offer evidence? There are only about a billion alternatives as to why those things happen, just use your imagination, the same imagination that leads you to believe it's evidence for evolution. Even if
I only boiled it down to God did it for his own reasons, and that's not to say there aren't plenty of other explanations, but if I did that, it would still be evidence to the contrary of what you believe. Of course one would then argue, God did it is not a viable reason, then I would argue since God simply make a lot more sense to me than this from little or nothing beginning y'all push, it does make it viable.

Accepted as evidence? Heck, I accept it as evidence in your minds. Now you move from the courts accepting as "fact" to accepting it as evidence, two different scenarios...what happened there? Then you say flat out it would be accepted in a court of law, when no one could know that until after the fact. You both backpedaled and weren't exactly truthful in that paragraph.

I didn't see any proof of legal ruling that the comment in question was a fact so, I'll assume there is none and you bringing that up was a waste of everyone's time. I'm aware of what your point was, and you now know mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There you go again, I already said I don't doubt facts. Facts, if they are truly facts are undeniable, why would I pretend to doubt them? It's your opinions on what certain facts mean or what is concluded from them O doubt wholheartedly. Why do feel you have to twist things so often as you do here?

Facts are facts are facts and they are what they are.
Common ancestry of life is a fact.

And what do you make of that?

That species that share ERV's share common ancestors where the initial insertion took place.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I didn't offer evidence? There are only about a billion alternatives as to why those things happen, just use your imagination, the same imagination that leads you to believe it's evidence for evolution.

I prefer to go by the evidence of reality as opposed to what my imagination can produce.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I prefer to go by the evidence of reality as opposed to what my imagination can produce.

Yet it seems your imagination is winning out and producing evidence of evolution from just that.

So far the imagination of many Atheists has gotten us all here from little or nothing and it all just happened. So I'll take my imagining it was created over imagining something as nonsensical as that any day.

Facts are facts are facts and they are what they are.
Common ancestry of life is a fact.

That species that share ERV's share common ancestors where the initial insertion took place.

Common ancestry means to me all humans came fro Adam/Eve, so that makes sense. As to the animals, that they were all put together with basically the same biological ingredients as us, is no surprise to anyone. To say any of your opinions backs evolution is only opinion drawn by opinions/your own set of findings, that choose to head in their own, and often an agenda driven direction, nothing more. You see what you want to see, not necessarily what is there....very basic psychology, happens all the time.

At another place on this board, I've already been over the point that, as in a murder mystery, everyone sees the evidence as pointing to something different, but in the end, it doesn't matter what they think, it all has to be brought into the courts as mentioned earlier, in order to come up with a final verdict, and until then, "I'm right and you are wrong" doesn't cut it as you evidently think it should.

And even if our courts did judge evolution a fact, it would not be final for many of us until the final judgment. Sure, you could then relax with your verified delusion for a short time, but that's not going to do a lot for you, actually that'll only hurt your chances. So all said and done for now, you can make claims until you are blue in the face, but you'll just have to wait till then to settle it. Actually you'll just have to wait till you die, the truth will then hit you like a ton of bricks, nothing further required. But you don't have to take my word for it, just be patient.

 

[sfs]

I didn't offer evidence?

Yep. That's the heart of the matter. You offer no evidence, and have no response to the evidence we offer. All of those other words you typed: look at them. Not a one of them engages the evidence. They're all excuses for why you don't have to deal with it. This is why I say you're not interested in the evidence: your actions proclaim that you're not.

There are only about a billion alternatives as to why those things happen, just use your imagination, the same imagination that leads you to believe it's evidence for evolution.

I have used my imagination, and my imagination tells me that the only realistic explanation for shared ERV insertions is common ancestry for different species. That's where the evidence points. You tell me it doesn't point there, but can't tell me why.

Even if
I only boiled it down to God did it for his own reasons, and that's not to say there aren't plenty of other explanations, but if I did that, it would still be evidence to the contrary of what you believe.

No, that wouldn't be evidence of anything, except of your beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yet it seems your imagination is winning out and producing evidence of evolution from just that.

No. You keep repeating this, but you never show it.
You have yet to correctly identify anything that is supposedly just my "imagination", instead of actual evidence / facts.

So far the imagination of many Atheists

This has nothing to do with "atheism" and everything with simple facts.
Which is why I specifically used quotes concerning evolution from people like Francis Collins. A devout christian.

Most christians have no issue at all with evolution theory and biology in general. Your continued insinuation that evolution theory is somehow an exclusive "atheist" thing, is simply ridiculous. It is demonstably false.

You need to get over that. It simply is not true.

So I'll take my imagining it was created over imagining something as nonsensical as that any day.

The reason it seems nonsensical to you, doesn't seem to be based on anything but your ill understanding of it all. Or your unwillingness to gain any understanding.

Common ancestry means to me all humans came fro Adam/Eve, so that makes sense.

Which is demonstrably false. At no point in human history was the population limited to only 2 individuals. First, a population of 2 is biologically unsustainable and doomed to extinction.

Second, such a massive genetic bottleneck would be evident from the DNA.
Such a situation factually never existed at any point in human history.

As to the animals, that they were all put together with basically the same biological ingredients as us, is no surprise to anyone.

I'm 110% certain that you have been informed in the past how this is a misconception. You are once again hinting to "mere similarity is not evidence of common ancestry". Nobody here is saying it is.

Because in life, we don't observe "mere similarity". We observe a pattern of similarity. A pattern that is consistent with the evolutionary model. It is the only pattern that would be consistent with the evolutionary model. At the same time, it is not the pattern we would expect from a creationist model as presented by fundamentalists.

And that pattern is the nested hierarchy.

So again, it is not about mere similarity... it is about the distribution of similarities.
It is about the hierarchical nature of the distribution of similarities.
It is about a distribution of similarities that is consistent with a family tree.

To say any of your opinions backs evolution is only opinion drawn by opinions/your own set of findings, that choose to head in their own, and often an agenda driven direction, nothing more.

There is no agenda and there is no opinion.

The nested hierarchy is factually present.
It is factually consistent with the evolutionary model.
It is factually inconsistent with the creationist model.

Again, there is no agenda. There is only an acknowledgement of the facts.

The only one here with an agenda, is you.
You are the one who pretends to have the answers before asking the question.
You are the one who's waving with a bronze age book that contains a story that you are hellbend on believing.
You are the one who starts with the answer (= creationism).
You are the one that isn't willing to consider the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect.
You are the one that will assume that the science or the facts must be wrong, if they contradict the story that you already believe.

I have no preference for whatever outcome, for whatever answer.
You do.

You see what you want to see, not necessarily what is there.

Again, no... that's what you do.

I just go by the evidence and data.
You go by a story.

At another place on this board, I've already been over the point that, as in a murder mystery, everyone sees the evidence as pointing to something different, but in the end, it doesn't matter what they think, it all has to be brought into the courts as mentioned earlier, in order to come up with a final verdict, and until then, "I'm right and you are wrong" doesn't cut it as you evidently think it should.

The only one here who's saying things like "i'm right and you are wrong", is you.
We have given you example after example of how we know that common ancestry of life is perfectly sensible and nothing short of a genetic fact.

Loudmouth went out of his way to give you a detailed and technical explanation about ERV's. Which you then swepped aside by saying that it was to "technical" and too much "jargon and big words".

And when put in simpler words, you scream "opinion" and dissmiss it at face value.
While nobody is giving you any opinions, but just the facts.

You are entitled to your opinions. But not to your own facts.
Facts are facts are facts.

And the fact is that if viral insertions take place, they do so in random spots in the genome and then these are past on as ERV's to off spring. And the fact is that we can determine common ancestry by looking at these genetic markers.

Those are the facts. They are not opinions. They are not theories or hypothesis. They are facts.

And even if our courts did judge evolution a fact, it would not be final for many of us until the final judgment.

What "final" judgement?

Sure, you could then relax with your verified delusion for a short time, but that's not going to do a lot for you, actually that'll only hurt your chances.

Chances of what?
What are you talking about?

Are you doing what I think you're doing? Are you know resorting to handing out threats of hellfire to those who dare to accept well-evidence models of biology?

So all said and done for now, you can make claims until you are blue in the face, but you'll just have to wait till then to settle it.

Till when?
And once more, I didn't make any claims. I gave you facts.
Genetic facts. Verifiable, testable, observable facts.

Actually you'll just have to wait till you die, the truth will then hit you like a ton of bricks, nothing further required. But you don't have to take my word for it, just be patient.

Haaaa.... so you ARE resorting to threats of hell, to argue against biology.

See, this is exactly what I mean.

You got nothing. All you have is a fundamentalist religion.
If you had actual valid arguments against biology, you could just share those...

Instead, here you are... "well, you'll find out when you die". Uhu, uhu....
Like a real Srottsman, ey....

I guess Francis Collins isn't a "real" or a "good" christian.
You know... when the acceptance of a scientific model becomes overshadowed by "being a good/bad christian", then you know what time it is.

This is simply more confirmation of what I said above.

The only one with an agenda here, is you.

 

[Jimmy D]

And even if our courts did judge evolution a fact, it would not be final for many of us until the final judgment. Sure, you could then relax with your verified delusion for a short time, but that's not going to do a lot for you, actually that'll only hurt your chances.

So whatever evidence or 'proof' is shown to you, even if it is irrefutable, you still won't accept evolution and common anscestry? And you accuse others of being deluded. How sad.

 

[David_M]

Because in life, we don't observe "mere similarity". We observe a pattern of similarity. A pattern that is consistent with the evolutionary model. It is the only pattern that would be consistent with the evolutionary model. At the same time, it is not the pattern we would expect from a creationist model as presented by fundamentalists.

And that pattern is the nested hierarchy.

So again, it is not about mere similarity... it is about the distribution of similarities.
It is about the hierarchical nature of the distribution of similarities.
It is about a distribution of similarities that is consistent with a family tree.

More than just that we also see a pattern of differences that also matches the pattern of similarity.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Yep. That's the heart of the matter. You offer no evidence, and have no response to the evidence we offer. All of those other words you typed: look at them. Not a one of them engages the evidence. They're all excuses for why you don't have to deal with it. This is why I say you're not interested in the evidence: your actions proclaim that you're not.

There you go again making false claims. I responded it was opinion, I responded fact are facts, and I don't disagree you have some facts. You just made it 100% clear now, as I mentioned before, if my response is not in agreement with you it doesn't exist.

I have used my imagination, and my imagination tells me that the only realistic explanation for shared ERV insertions is common ancestry for different species. That's where the evidence points. You tell me it doesn't point there, but can't tell me why.

And I told you it could simply be because all animals were made from the same stuff and that is all they have in common. That is no reason to believe one turned into the other. So once again, I did comment on why, yet you accuse me again. I'll stop taking you seriously eventually. And your telling ME I'm not listening or considering the evidence?

No, that wouldn't be evidence of anything, except of your beliefs.

Just as your beliefs make your evidence evidence. You really have run out of argument, haven't you.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No. You keep repeating this, but you never show it.
You have yet to correctly identify anything that is supposedly just my "imagination", instead of actual evidence / facts.



This has nothing to do with "atheism" and everything with simple facts.
Which is why I specifically used quotes concerning evolution from people like Francis Collins. A devout christian.

Most christians have no issue at all with evolution theory and biology in general. Your continued insinuation that evolution theory is somehow an exclusive "atheist" thing, is simply ridiculous. It is demonstably false.

You need to get over that. It simply is not true.



The reason it seems nonsensical to you, doesn't seem to be based on anything but your ill understanding of it all. Or your unwillingness to gain any understanding.



Which is demonstrably false. At no point in human history was the population limited to only 2 individuals. First, a population of 2 is biologically unsustainable and doomed to extinction.

Second, such a massive genetic bottleneck would be evident from the DNA.
Such a situation factually never existed at any point in human history.




I'm 110% certain that you have been informed in the past how this is a misconception. You are once again hinting to "mere similarity is not evidence of common ancestry". Nobody here is saying it is.

Because in life, we don't observe "mere similarity". We observe a pattern of similarity. A pattern that is consistent with the evolutionary model. It is the only pattern that would be consistent with the evolutionary model. At the same time, it is not the pattern we would expect from a creationist model as presented by fundamentalists.

And that pattern is the nested hierarchy.

So again, it is not about mere similarity... it is about the distribution of similarities.
It is about the hierarchical nature of the distribution of similarities.
It is about a distribution of similarities that is consistent with a family tree.



There is no agenda and there is no opinion.

The nested hierarchy is factually present.
It is factually consistent with the evolutionary model.
It is factually inconsistent with the creationist model.

Again, there is no agenda. There is only an acknowledgement of the facts.

The only one here with an agenda, is you.
You are the one who pretends to have the answers before asking the question.
You are the one who's waving with a bronze age book that contains a story that you are hellbend on believing.
You are the one who starts with the answer (= creationism).
You are the one that isn't willing to consider the possibility that your beliefs are incorrect.
You are the one that will assume that the science or the facts must be wrong, if they contradict the story that you already believe.

I have no preference for whatever outcome, for whatever answer.
You do.



Again, no... that's what you do.

I just go by the evidence and data.
You go by a story.



The only one here who's saying things like "i'm right and you are wrong", is you.
We have given you example after example of how we know that common ancestry of life is perfectly sensible and nothing short of a genetic fact.

Loudmouth went out of his way to give you a detailed and technical explanation about ERV's. Which you then swepped aside by saying that it was to "technical" and too much "jargon and big words".

And when put in simpler words, you scream "opinion" and dissmiss it at face value.
While nobody is giving you any opinions, but just the facts.

You are entitled to your opinions. But not to your own facts.
Facts are facts are facts.

And the fact is that if viral insertions take place, they do so in random spots in the genome and then these are past on as ERV's to off spring. And the fact is that we can determine common ancestry by looking at these genetic markers.

Those are the facts. They are not opinions. They are not theories or hypothesis. They are facts.



What "final" judgement?



Chances of what?
What are you talking about?

Are you doing what I think you're doing? Are you know resorting to handing out threats of hellfire to those who dare to accept well-evidence models of biology?



Till when?
And once more, I didn't make any claims. I gave you facts.
Genetic facts. Verifiable, testable, observable facts.



Haaaa.... so you ARE resorting to threats of hell, to argue against biology.

See, this is exactly what I mean.

You got nothing. All you have is a fundamentalist religion.
If you had actual valid arguments against biology, you could just share those...

Instead, here you are... "well, you'll find out when you die". Uhu, uhu....
Like a real Srottsman, ey....

I guess Francis Collins isn't a "real" or a "good" christian.
You know... when the acceptance of a scientific model becomes overshadowed by "being a good/bad christian", then you know what time it is.

This is simply more confirmation of what I said above.

The only one with an agenda here, is you.

Sorry man, that's just entirely too long. I'm doing what I'm willing to to work with you here but I'm not going to spend hours on this, especially after knowing were it's gotten us thus far.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sorry man, that's just entirely too long.

Sure, it is.....

I'm doing what I'm willing to to work with you here but I'm not going to spend hours on this, especially after knowing were it's gotten us thus far.

Off course you do...

ps: does it really take you "hours" to read that post?

 

[Kenny'sID]

So whatever evidence or 'proof' is shown to you, even if it is irrefutable, you still won't accept evolution and common anscestry? And you accuse others of being deluded. How sad.

There's that imagination again. Fact is fact, opinion of what the facts mean are not necessarily fact. Evolution is far from irrefutable. Also, what you are actually saying, at least in context to what you replied to, is if I choose to wait for a decision on if it is truly irrefutable, a decision that really matters, I am deluded?

So, I could easily say with pretzel logic like that, *you* are deluded and what I said makes perfect sense. You are seeing what you want to see again. You want to demean so you see reason to demean, whether it is there or not. Clear you are out of arguments as well.

And you really expect me to accept some of your conclusions after revealing a thought process like that?

 

[Loudmouth]

I've listened to what you call evidence many a time, so to say I'm not interested is simply not true. I still feel the end conclusions do not equate to fact.

Feelings do not trump facts.

If all you have is "I don't feel it is true", then you really have no argument against the scientific conclusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

There's that imagination again. Fact is fact, opinion of what the facts mean are not necessarily fact. Evolution is far from irrefutable. Also, what you are actually saying, at least in context to what you replied to, is if I choose to wait for a decision on if it is truly irrefutable, a decision that really matters, I am deluded?

We are talking about endogenous retroviruses, or ERVs. What in that argument do you think is wrong?

You have yet to show why ERVs are not evidence for evolution. Will we be seeing that argument any time soon? If you aren't able to show how ERVs are not evidence for evolution, then why do you claim that it is just opinion?

 

[Loudmouth]

If it has not been deemed a legal fact, your comment has no bearing on the conversation unless of course you intend to take it to court to see, something that is unlikely to happen, as well as unlikely to be decided upon as opinion or fact, putting is right back to your comment being null.

Do you really think that courts determine what are facts within science? That's some serious denial you have working there.

 

[dickyh995]

Not me. I could never dream up anything that worked so well as biological evolution.

That would depend on what you mean by "worked so well." There is no goal to evolution, homo sapiens are not the pinnacle of anything. More than 99% of all species to have ever existed are now extinct. The vast majority of life don't even make it to adulthood. Is that working well? At any rate, it seems a meaningless statement as evolution just happens, there is no guide or goal.

 

[Speedwell]

That would depend on what you mean by "worked so well." There is no goal to evolution, homo sapiens are not the pinnacle of anything. More than 99% of all species to have ever existed are now extinct. The vast majority of life don't even make it to adulthood. Is that working well? At any rate, it seems a meaningless statement as evolution just happens, there is no guide or goal.

Of course it is working well. Life has teemed over what was once a lifeless wasteland, surviving many catastrophes, and it will continue to do so.