Why are you an evolutionist?

[Heissonear]

I've never heard of that before, "evolutionist". I've never in my life seen such a fuss about evolution as on this forum!!! I don't know who is serious and who is joking. My mom said some people who aren't Christians will say they're Christians and act ignorant to mock us. I guess I'm a round-earther too cause I don't think the earth is flat. Evolution is fact.

There is more to learn, Butterfly.

I was raised, naturally investigative when growing up, and academically trained in Earth history and evolution.

At one time I called Evolution a fact, but now know in error.

Keep learning. Particularly through His Spirit about things physical.

Evolution of life forms never happened. I'm one who knows the fossil and rock record well when saying such.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Sharing a common ancestor with mice does not make mice our ancestors. They are our cousins. Sharing a common ancestor with your cousins does not make them your ancestors, does it?

 

[Loudmouth]

At one time I called Evolution a fact, but now know in error.

Yet another empty assertion.

Evolution of life forms never happened. I'm one who knows the fossil and rock record well when saying such.

Then perhaps you can help me answer this question, which other creationists can't seem to answer. Below are 4 pelvises. I conclude that the two pelvises in the middle are more like the pelvis on the left than the pelvis on the right. Can you show me how I am wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

Since we are talk about humans, primates, mice, and chickens, here are the DNA genetic distances between these groups for the cytochrome c gene:

Human vs.
Macaque: 98.1%
Mouse: 90.5%
Chicken: 81.6%

Here is the question for creationists. What does creationism predict will be the distance between the cytochrome c gene for mice and chickens, and why?

 

[Heissonear]

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

Trap of not recognizing evolution of life on Earth as a fact?

As a Naturalist by upbringing and academic education I was once like you and mocked anyone who did not understand evolution as the way things came about.

But .......... since have learned firsthand evolution require faith. A lot of evidence that supports it? Yes. So a fact by such evidence? No.

It appears you need to learn more about Earth's past. Evolution from one life form to another over millions of years never occurred.

 

[Loudmouth]

As a Naturalist by upbringing and academic education I was once like you and mocked anyone who did not understand evolution as the way things came about.

But .......... since have learned firsthand evolution require faith. A lot of evidence that supports it? Yes. So a fact by such evidence? No.

Why would we need faith when we have mountains of evidence? Also, evolution is both fact and theory.

"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Evolution from one life form to another over millions of years never occurred.

Then why do we find 200,000 retroviral insertions at the same location in both the human and chimp genomes?

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/

 

[Heissonear]

Since we are talk about humans, primates, mice, and chickens, here are the DNA genetic distances between these groups for the cytochrome c gene:

Human vs.
Macaque: 98.1%
Mouse: 90.5%
Chicken: 81.6%

Here is the question for creationists. What does creationism predict will be the distance between the cytochrome c gene for mice and chickens, and why?

If you are "convinced" then that is fine.

You say what you present us evidence then that is fine, that is what you perceive as evidence.

But to "mock others" who interpret things differently is where some Evolutionist are at.

For many, being an Evolutionist is not enough. Why? Because anyone who thinks differently they do not tolerate, but persecute and may even mock.

Presenting evidence for evolution is not the reason of posting for many Evolutionist. It is to show other peoples "evidence" as wrong comparatively, with persecution for seeing things different than how Evolutionist see things.

Remember, I was a well educated Evolutionist prior to knowing differently. Being ignorant does not apply.

 

[Heissonear]

This thread should go to Creation-Evolution discussion.

 

[sfs]

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 ignored everything that was irrelevant to the evidence that you were responding to. Nothing you have said has in any way rebutted the evidence of shared viral insertions. In fact, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you are "convinced" then that is fine.

You say what you present us evidence then that is fine, that is what you perceive as evidence.

But to "mock others" who interpret things differently is where some Evolutionist are at.

You aren't interpreting them. That's the point. You are just ignoring them.

Also, you haven't shown how my interpretation is wrong. I am referring to evidence, which means I am not using faith.

For many, being an Evolutionist is not enough. Why? Because anyone who thinks differently they do not tolerate, but persecute and may even mock.

How are you being persecuted? Talk about a wild imagination.

What we are saying is that you don't have a scientific interpretation that shows evolution to be wrong. The only reason you claim that evolution is false is because of your faith based beliefs.

Presenting evidence for evolution is not the reason of posting for many Evolutionist. It is to show other peoples "evidence" as wrong comparatively, with persecution for seeing things different than how Evolutionist see things.

What evidence have you presented? What scientific interpretations have you presented?

Remember, I was a well educated Evolutionist prior to knowing differently. Being ignorant does not apply.

Then answer my questions as they relate to the picture of the pelvises and the comparison of DNA.

 

[Heissonear]

You aren't interpreting them. That's the point. You are just ignoring them.

Also, you haven't shown how my interpretation is wrong. I am referring to evidence, which means I am not using faith.



How are you being persecuted? Talk about a wild imagination.

What we are saying is that you don't have a scientific interpretation that shows evolution to be wrong. The only reason you claim that evolution is false is because of your faith based beliefs.



What evidence have you presented? What scientific interpretations have you presented?



Then answer my questions as they relate to the picture of the pelvises and the comparison of DNA.

I have a sound education in evolution.

If you are persuaded that is fine.

Telling others that evolution is a fact is your choice.

I was once like you.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have a sound education in evolution.

If you are persuaded that is fine.

Telling others that evolution is a fact is your choice.

I was once like you.

You still can't give us a scientific interpretation of the evidence. Why is that? Why are you just ignoring the evidence?

 

[SeventyTimes7]

Sharing a common ancestor with mice does not make mice our ancestors. They are our cousins. Sharing a common ancestor with your cousins does not make them your ancestors, does it?

Still waiting for you to find an ancestor in common with bananas.
And surely out there we share high percentage of DNA with any other fruit or plant or animal or anything which contains DNA so to state "chimps is our ancestor" cause of that it is far from the real world.

 

[Loudmouth]

Still waiting for you to find an ancestor in common with bananas.

The DNA evidence demonstrates that we share a common ancestor.

And surely out there we share high percentage of DNA with any other fruit or plant or animal or anything which contains DNA so to state "chimps is our ancestor" cause of that it is far from the real world.

No one is saying that chimps are our ancestor. They are our cousins.

 

[whois]

Also, evolution is both fact and theory.

this is one of the most outright blatent lies of all of science.
evolution is not even close to a "fact".
there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that life arose naturally from the elements.
there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.

so, as far as stating evolution as a "fact" you are on very shaky ground, maybe even quicksand.

 

[Loudmouth]

this is one of the most outright blatent lies of all of science.
evolution is not even close to a "fact".
there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that life arose naturally from the elements.

That is abiogenesis, not evolution. We have been over this multiple times.

It is a fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The theory is used to explain the differences between our genomes. That is how the facts and theory of evolution interact.

there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.

I already showed that the article by Smith admits that their review of the evidence is lacking.

 

[bhsmte]

That is abiogenesis, not evolution. We have been over this multiple times.

It is a fact that chimps and humans share a common ancestor. The theory is used to explain the differences between our genomes. That is how the facts and theory of evolution interact.



I already showed that the article by Smith admits that their review of the evidence is lacking.

Bringing up abiogenesis when the discussion is about evolution, is a sure sign of desperation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why are you an evolutionist?

Having seen the responses of the evolutionists vs. the responses of the anti-evolutionists, I would hope the answer would be self-evident by now.

 

[whois]

I already showed that the article by Smith admits that their review of the evidence is lacking.

yes, it could be interpreted that way, or in the same vein it could be interpreted that smiths proposal is the one lacking evidence.
from the conclusions:

 

[sfs]

this is one of the most outright blatent lies of all of science.
evolution is not even close to a "fact".
there is absolutely no proof whatsoever that life arose naturally from the elements.
there is no empirical evidence for the major transitions of evolution.

I believe you're misunderstanding an argument somewhere. None of the papers or researchers I've seen you cite has expressed the slightest doubt that the major transitions of evolution occurred. What some claim is that there's no (or little) empirical evidence for how they happened. The first is the fact of evolution: we share common ancestors with all other known life on this planet. The second is the theory (or theories) of evolution: how and why those changes have occurred.