The evidence for Evolution.

dad · Dec 25, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
Gospels were written by unknown authors decades after the alleged events. But this is a thread about evolution. The existence of Jesus is irrelevant to biology. Francis Collins is one of the most respected geneticists in the world. He accepts evolution and is also a devout Christian. You are certainly not smarter than Mr. Collins when it comes to the facts of evolution.

Far smarter actually. I have the sense to believe Jesus. All the things this guy thinks he knows are lying garbage.

dad · Dec 25, 2016

KTS said:
No. Evolution is only about how life has changed. It does not describe where life came from.
.

Here's the deal, if you claim common relatives with a flatworm, that is moot.

dad · Dec 25, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
Gospels were written by unknown authors decades after the alleged events. But this is a thread about evolution. The existence of Jesus is irrelevant to biology.

The creator is MOST relevant to biology actually.

JonFromMinnesota · Dec 25, 2016

dad said:
Far smarter actually. I have the sense to believe Jesus. All the things this guy thinks he knows are lying garbage.

He believes in Jesus too. He's also intellectually honest enough to recognize that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. If anyone would understand that, it would be him considering he lead the human genome project.

The creator is MOST relevant to biology actually.

Science doesn't concern itself with the existence or nonexistence of God. You'd be quite useless in the lab, dad.

dad · Dec 25, 2016

JonFromMinnesota said:
He believes in Jesus too.

So does Satan...so??? Not believing God over manscience is a sin.

He's also intellectually honest enough to recognize that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

That means nothing at all. Some people think that a bacteria evolving is 'evidence for evolution'. Others look at skulls that look a bit like a man skull and imagine that man came from beasts. Etc. A bunch of lost and ignorant fanatics.

If anyone would understand that, it would be him considering he lead the human genome project.

That would not even be relative. What does mapping current existing genes have to do with inventing godless dreamscapes to explain creation??

Science doesn't concern itself with the existence or nonexistence of God.

Then it cuts off all possibility of one day actually learning something true!

You'd be quite useless in the lab, dad.

? Like I am supposed to want to work in some lab??

dad · Dec 25, 2016

OK looks like Christmas has come and gone....signing off for awhile again....

Kylie · Dec 25, 2016

dad said:
There is evidence Jesus lived, and the apostles...and prophets. The Scriptures were best preserved of all documents. There is evidence in the lives of millions. Look into it.

Yeah. Like the fact that there are no sources of any kind from the time Jesus is said to have lived, the earliest sources are from several decades later, and they only say there are Christians who believe in a figure named Jesus.

Kylie · Dec 25, 2016

dad said:
We are all in a position. Every one that asks receives.

How do you know they received? It's not like people die and then tell you if they are in Heaven. All you can do is take the word of the same people who are trying to sell you the product - and that gives them a HUGE incentive to say you'll get it even if you never will.

Kylie · Dec 25, 2016

dad said:
Here's the deal, if you claim common relatives with a flatworm, that is moot.

If you claim you came from dust, you have no knowledge of science whatsoever and are not in any position to debate science.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Dec 26, 2016

dad said:
It is ignorance and denial to pretend that what we see in our time and space reflects all of creation. You cannot deal with the fact that distances and sizes cannot be known unless we know time exists where the stars are also.

As Descartes said so long ago, we can never be certain of knowing anything beyond that we are thinking entities.

But if the world we seem to observe behaves in sufficiently consistent ways that we can model and predict its other behaviours, and we find those predictions are correct and that various other discoveries are also consistent with our models, then we are justified in provisionally accepting those models as correct, within limits.

The universe we observe does appear to behave as if the laws of nature, and the passage of time, are fairly consistent and predictable to the limits of our ability to detect and model them.

You may prefer to make up mystical and magical stories about the universe, but for me the extraordinary observations we have made of it, and amazing correspondence they have with the models we have made, is quite awe inspiring enough without imaginative fantasies.

GazzaStott · Dec 26, 2016

dad said:
There is evidence Jesus lived, and the apostles...and prophets. The Scriptures were best preserved of all documents. There is evidence in the lives of millions. Look into it.

There is only one problem, no one can find any of this evidence, if Jesus did exist why is it only recorded in the Bible, his life and the things he did must have been so unimpressive they passed every other writer by and was not recorded anywhere else, I'm just saying.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 30, 2016

John 1720 said:
Nice of you to answer for him but don't you think it is obfuscating the point and the thread if the person who make the diminutive claim hasn't even addressed who he is talking to in the first place? Are we just supposed to guess who he is talking to?
Pat

He's talking to everyone who likes to pretend as if there is a difference between micro and macro evolution.

Most creationists tend to make such claims. It is a general comment addressed to all creationists in this thread who make such claims. Which seems to be about all of them.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 30, 2016

John 1720 said:
And we can prove these gradual micro changes over long periods of time building up one micro change after another eventually cause differing species over epochs exactly how?

1. with comparative DNA
2. by using common sense. If a "generation" is a single step of 1 inch, then after many many many such generations, you will have walked miles. That's kind of the inevitable result of the accumulation of changes.

As I said in physics the forces that happen at a micro-level pico meters and fempto meters are not existent at the macro level.

But we aren't talking about the forces of physics. We are talking about micro changes happening in every generation and being passed on to off spring, who then in turn add their own micro-changes.

We are talking about the nature and inevitable result of hereditary systems.

How then can we be sure in Biology that there can be no difference between micro evolution or macro evolution.

Because there simply is no difference. There never was. It's a creationist invention/lie that there is. In the field of Biology, there never was a distinction nore has there ever been any evidence to suggest such either.

Your question assumes that this actually ever was a point of discussion in the field. But that is simply not true. There is just the process of hereditary change + selection. Short term, this results in small changes in the population. Long term, as those changes build up through inheritance of genetics, this results in large changes.

Why is this so hard to understand/accept? It's not rocket science......
It's ridiculously easy toi find analogies to this process. Here's a famous one:

The font color undergoes a VERY SMALL gradation change in every new letter.
Eventually you end up with a "completely different" color.

It's the inevitable result of accumulation of small changes.

I'm simply looking for something to hang my hat on here and don't believe I've heard articulate answers.

Then you must not be listening as I have personally seen this being explained in both this thread as well as other threads many dozens of times.

But in case you missed ALL those posts, I'm guessing you have read this one.

So there you go....
You're welcome.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 30, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Let's clear one thing up. Micro evolution as you all like to call adaptation is a far cry from macro evolution.

No. It's the exact same thing. The only difference is the time scale that is being refered to.

If you have a car that travels at 5 inch per minute, you will have traveled a "micro distance" after 5 minutes.

But you will have travelled many many many miles ("macro distance") after driving for a couple centuries.

It's the inevitable result of accumulation.

Just because I accept that if you take 1 million black rabbits and place them near the Arctic they will eventually become white rabbits, does not mean I accept that they will become something other than rabbits.

They would eventually change so much that the off spring of those million rabbits will no longer be able to mate with the off spring of the original population where you took them from. They will effectively have become a new species. A sub-species of rabbit.

They may adapt to their environment by becoming white, but they started as rabbits and in a million years will still be rabbits. They will never become anything but rabbits.

Nore does evolution predict that they would.
In fact, if they would become anything but rabbits (or sub-species thereof), evolution theory as currently understood would be falsified.

So one can only wonder, what your objection here is....

So if you want to call adaptation incorrectly micro evolution fine. But macro evolution has never been observed and is fantasy.

It doesn't matter what terms your use... Adaption, micro evolution, macro evolution....
They are all essentially the same thing, powered by the same processes. The only difference is an arbitrary amount of "change" in the species, which goes hand in hand with the amount of time that is involved.

Due to the hereditary nature of DNA, and the fact that every newborn has a set of mutations...

It logically follows that a population will show LESS change after 10 generations as opposed to after 1000 generations.

Think about that car again in the beginning of this post....

It will have travelled less distance after 1 hour as opposed to after 1 year.

Again, it's not rocket science.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 30, 2016

Justatruthseeker said:
Your refusal to accept the outcomes are the same?

Can you tell me what the difference in offspring would be if I force an Asian an African to mate or if they choose to do so?

Can you tell me what the difference in offspring would be if I mate a Husky with a Mastiff, or if famine causes the Mastiff to migrate to new lands and it mates with a Husky?

The difference is your refusal to recognize that man mating two breeds would be no different than natural causes forcing them together and them mating. The difference is it gives you an excuse to reject the evidence. A poor one at that since the results would be the same in both cases. A Chinook.

I'll address your other fantasy outlooks on life after work.

There is nothing in any breeding program anywhere on the planet that is problematic in context of evolution theory.

If anything, breeding programs prove that the processes that power evolutionary change are very real and very effective.

TagliatelliMonster · Dec 30, 2016

dad said:
Rather than pagan handwaving, try and specify a piece or two of said evidence. We will see it is but religion.

I love it, how creationists can "accuse" biology of being "but a religion"... as if religion is a bad thing.

I agree religion is a bad thing, but you gotta love the irony.

Justatruthseeker · Jan 1, 2017

SteveB28 said:
Have you ever bothered to research 'speciation'?
.

Speciation, is that sort of like calling Finches separate species due to reproductive isolation then finding out through DNA tests that they have been interbreeding since arriving on the islands and so were never reproductively isolated and so speciation never occurred?

Then refusing to accept the outcome of those very DNA tests and admitting your classification of different infraspecific taxa as separate species is incorrect?

Just like every species that exists today has many separate infraspecific taxa within that species, but then in the fossil record no infraspecific taxa exist. (Asian, African, Latino; Husky, Mastiff, Chinook; red tailed deer, white tailed deer, mule deer; and the list goes on and on and on for every species that exists) They have labeled the separate infraspecific taxa in the fossil record incorrectly as separate species which leads you to your error in believing things change species. Just as they have also labeled other infraspecific taxa as separate species, because you have a species problem.

But those that refuse to correct classifications of Darwins Finches mating right in front of their eyes with the DNA data to confirm they never underwent speciation to begin with, surely can't be trusted in any of their other claims of incorrectly labeling the different infraspecific taxa as separate species....

Justatruthseeker · Jan 1, 2017

Speedwell said:
No, it would not. Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of self-replicating life forms. How these came to be is a different field of study.

Convienent, except without the existence of those very life forms to start their is no theory of evolution.

Speedwell · Jan 1, 2017

Justatruthseeker said:
Convienent, except without the existence of those very life forms to start their is no theory of evolution.

Right. And since they came about by some different process than that which propels evolution, it's worthy of being an independent field of study.

Justatruthseeker · Jan 1, 2017

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
This is an effect known as 'Sisyphean evolution' which probably makes the finches a less than ideal example of radiative evolution; however, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of classic examples of radiative evolution in the Galapagos, that don't have this constraint; in birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, plants, etc. (I just watched a couple of documentaries on the Galapagos by David Attenborough).
.

Except the DNA data showed they had been interbreeding since arriving on the islands and so speciation through reproductive isolation never occurred in the first place.

Now I understand they don't like to talk about how they incorrectly classified the different infraspecific taxa as separate species, instead trying desperately to cling to their excuse of hybridization.

Yet since they were never reproductively isolated - the reason for classifying them as separate species to begin with - they never underwent speciation to begin with.

But heaven forbid evolutionists correct their incorrect classifications when it comes to Darwin's Finches, or any incorrect classification they believe points to their false belief.

The evidence for Evolution.

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Well-Known Member

Undefeated!

Undefeated!

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Defeater of Illogic

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency