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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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!
Why are you an evolutionist?
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
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.Why are you an evolutionist?
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.
Because evolution is the theory that best fits the available evidence.Why are you an evolutionist?
Because evolution is the theory that best fits the available evidence.
Great, what's your point?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?
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.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.
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?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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
ok so for the same reason depending on your belief, we should suppose that also the banana is our ancestor.Why doesn't it mean anything? We share a common ancestor with mice, so why shouldn't we share DNA?
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.
I go to drink a coffee while you try to find a "common ancestor" with the banana.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?