Why are you an evolutionist?

[[serious]]

I wouldn't compare Evolution with Creationism -- that debate died out a long, long, long time ago. ID had us all going for brief moment and I don't recall there being anything by way of an actual scientific challenge to Evolution from the Christian camp - period!

About 20 years ago there were some people honestly working to try and build ID into a model which produced testable hypotheses. I'm unaware with any progress on that front though.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why are you an evolutionist?

I learned it in high school.

It was only later, in college, that I realized that there was any controversy at all about the matter. I looked into the matter in more detail, and found that the evidence confirmed the theory of evolution, and that the most charitable term I could apply to the outspoken critics of evolution was 'mistaken'.

 

[Butterfly99]

Good thing you noticed that, for you won't be falling into the trap.* "Keep smiling, keep shining, knowing you can always count on me."

---
*- http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolutionist

Thanks for the link! Wow. Yeah I'm gonna avoid silly arguments about evolution for sure.

 

[Martinius]

Why are you an evolutionist?

I have not found anything else that explains so completely what we have observed, tested and discovered. And year after year we learn more about life and about our universe that adds to our understanding of the processes involved and makes it ever clearer that life evolves.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Why are you an evolutionist?

I thought I should mention that I am not an "evolutionist." There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." There are rational people who are scientifically literate. They are of all faiths, and none.

There are irrational people who are scientifically illiterate. They are of all faiths and none.

I am a rational man who is scientifically literate.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I thought I should mention that I am not an "evolutionist." There is no such thing as an "evolutionist." There are rational people who are scientifically literate. They are of all faiths, and none.

There are irrational people who are scientifically illiterate. They are of all faiths and none.

I am a rational man who is scientifically literate.

I'll issue the Noddy badges when everyone's had a chance to say why they are firmly convinced of Evolution, or not.

It's interesting to note, and I'm quoting from something I linked to on pg. 1:

'....However, the term has also been used by Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, PZ Myers and Niles Eldredge as a self-descriptor. ....'

So let's clarify this: WHY ARE YOU AN EVOLUTIONIST ? like say Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, PZ Myers and Niles Eldredge, who describe themselves as such ?

 

[Armoured]

Why are you an evolutionist?

Because evolution is the theory that best fits the available evidence.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Because evolution is the theory that best fits the available evidence.

For clarification and not to split too many hairs at a time :

'....Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else: ....' (refer here for the complete article : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html )

 

[Armoured]

For clarification and not to split too many hairs at a time :

'....Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else: ....' (refer here for the complete article : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html )

Great, what's your point?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Great, what's your point?

Can you see the quote?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

We would have a 200,000 point DNA match between humans and chimps, well beyond the usual DNA fingerprinting evidence used in court which has a 13 point DNA match.

Our DNA match for more than the 80% with mice and with chicken and 50% with banana, so that's not an "evidence" but trying to call evidence what is not an evidence but just a mere way to compare a thing to another without any logic.
Everything living in made with DNA, it's like to compare a steel pot with a steel bridge and to say "oh this pot evolute into a bridge" just because their alloy is similar.

 

[sfs]

Our DNA match for more than the 80% with mice and with chicken and 50% with banana, so that's not an "evidence" but trying to call evidence what is not an evidence but just a mere way to compare a thing to another without any logic.
Everything living in made with DNA, it's like to compare a steel pot with a steel bridge and to say "oh this pot evolute into a bridge" just because their alloy is similar.

I'm afraid you don't understand the evidence in this case. It's not a matter of humans and chimpanzees having similar DNA. There are 200,000 places in our genome where a virus has inserted its own genetic material into our DNA. In almost all 200,000, the identical virus also inserted itself into the identical place in the chimpanzee genome. The obvious explanation is that humans and chimpanzees inherited the same insertions from a common ancestor. I don't know what the alternative explanation might be, since I've never seen a creationist offer a coherent one. 200,000 coincidences?

 

[Loudmouth]

Our DNA match for more than the 80% with mice and with chicken and 50% with banana, so that's not an "evidence"

Why isn't it evidence? We share a common ancestor with mice, chickens, and bananas, so why shouldn't we also share DNA with them? Not only that, but a comparison of human, mouse, chicken, and banana DNA produces a phylogeny that mimics the phylogeny based on morphology, just as the theory of evolution predicts.

but trying to call evidence what is not an evidence but just a mere way to compare a thing to another without any logic.

You haven't shown that it isn't evidence, to begin with. Merely asserting it is not evidence does not make it go away.

Also, we do more than compare. We see if these DNA sequences fall into an objective phylogeny that also matches the phylogeny based on morphology.

"Here we commence to beat Pauling's poor 40-year dead horse. If there is one historical phylogenetic tree which unites all species in an objective genealogy, all separate lines of evidence should converge on the same tree (Penny et al. 1982; Penny et al. 1991; Zuckerkandl and Pauling 1965). Independently derived phylogenetic trees of all organisms should match each other with a high degree of statistical significance."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

Everything living in made with DNA, it's like to compare a steel pot with a steel bridge and to say "oh this pot evolute into a bridge" just because their alloy is similar.

Do pots and bridges fall into an objective phylogeny?

"Although it is trivial to classify anything subjectively in a hierarchical manner, only certain things can be classified objectively in a consistent, unique nested hierarchy. The difference drawn here between "subjective" and "objective" is crucial and requires some elaboration, and it is best illustrated by example. Different models of cars certainly could be classified hierarchically—perhaps one could classify cars first by color, then within each color by number of wheels, then within each wheel number by manufacturer, etc. However, another individual may classify the same cars first by manufacturer, then by size, then by year, then by color, etc. The particular classification scheme chosen for the cars is subjective. In contrast, human languages, which have common ancestors and are derived by descent with modification, generally can be classified in objective nested hierarchies (Pei 1949; Ringe 1999). Nobody would reasonably argue that Spanish should be categorized with German instead of with Portugese."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy

 

[SeventyTimes7]

I'm afraid you don't understand the evidence in this case. It's not a matter of humans and chimpanzees having similar DNA. There are 200,000 places in our genome where a virus has inserted its own genetic material into our DNA. In almost all 200,000, the identical virus also inserted itself into the identical place in the chimpanzee genome. The obvious explanation is that humans and chimpanzees inherited the same insertions from a common ancestor. I don't know what the alternative explanation might be, since I've never seen a creationist offer a coherent one. 200,000 coincidences?

If you ignored the 99% of what I said and which Is also an evidence, then there is no way to discuss. We share more than the 90% as well with mice, but that doesn't mean nothing.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you ignored the 99% of what I said and which Is also an evidence, then there is no way to discuss. We share more than the 90% as well with mice, but that doesn't mean nothing.

Why doesn't it mean anything? We share a common ancestor with mice, so why shouldn't we share DNA?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

Why isn't it evidence? We share a common ancestor with mice, chickens, and bananas, so why shouldn't we also share DNA with them? Not only that, but a comparison of human, mouse, chicken, and banana DNA produces a phylogeny that mimics the phylogeny based on morphology, just as the theory of evolution predicts.

What I meant is which if we share more than the 90% of DNA with chimps that's not an evidence to establish which they are our ancestors, cause we could think the same for the mice, chickens, bananas.
Since everything living is made by DNA it's easy to find out that we share the DNA with other living beings.

 

[SeventyTimes7]

Why doesn't it mean anything? We share a common ancestor with mice, so why shouldn't we share DNA?

ok so for the same reason depending on your belief, we should suppose that also the banana is our ancestor.

 

[SeventyTimes7]

I go to drink a coffee while you try to find a "common ancestor" with the banana.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I meant is which if we share more than the 90% of DNA with chimps that's not an evidence to establish which they are our ancestors, cause we could think the same for the mice, chickens, bananas.

We aren't saying that chimps are our ancestors. They are our cousins as are mice, chickens, and bananas, just more distantly related. We share DNA with chimps because we both evolved from a shared ancestor. The shared DNA is evidence for that conclusion.

Since everything living is made by DNA it's easy to find out that we share the DNA with other living beings.

It isn't simply sharing DNA. The DNA sequences fall into a phylogeny, and that phylogeny matches the phylogeny based on what species look like.

 

[Loudmouth]

I go to drink a coffee while you try to find a "common ancestor" with the banana.

Why would shared DNA not be evidence of common ancestry?