Why are you an evolutionist?

[Shemjaza]

i think you are confusing common sense with evidence.
i will be the first to agree that evolution makes all the rational sense in the world.
but as far as any real evidence, i haven't seen any.

For me, the ERVs and the transitional fossils alone make the case pretty well.

At the very least, the diversity of vertebrates seems cut and dried: population isolation, mutation, VGT can account for the mojority of diversity.

i'm talking about empirical evidence for the 2 primary considerations of evolution.
1. life arose from the elements with no "outside" help.
2. bacteria can become a tree or a whale or a man.

1. No idea, not actually necessary to demonstrate evolution. In addition there's no reason to assume any kind of "outside" without actual evidence for it even existing.
2. There is definitely signs of significant relationships between extant single celled organisms and extant complicated species so that's a bunch towards showing a connection.

side note:
where is this thread located?
i've looked in the physical and life sciences for it but can't find it.

Can't answer, sorry, it's right there on my screen.

 

[whois]

For me, the ERVs and the transitional fossils alone make the case pretty well.

maybe.
in the case of ERVs in regards to chimps and humans, this could easily be an incorrect method or coincidence.
without corroborating evidence from other such comparisons between different life forms there is no way to know for sure.
as far as fossils go, there are very few, if any, transitional forms between species.
evolution simply does not adhere to gradualism, fast or slow.

At the very least, the diversity of vertebrates seems cut and dried: population isolation, mutation, VGT can account for the mojority of diversity.

agreed, the diversity of life is indeed apparent.
i don't think it's as cut and dried as you may think though.

1. No idea, not actually necessary to demonstrate evolution. In addition there's no reason to assume any kind of "outside" without actual evidence for it even existing.

evolutionists often state this, but i disagree.
the formation of genes is essential to life, and abiogenesis is at the very heart of this process.

2. There is definitely signs of significant relationships between extant single celled organisms and extant complicated species so that's a bunch towards showing a connection.

it seems obvious that all life is related in the fact it all shares the common component DNA.

don't get me wrong, i'm not arguing against evolution, i'm arguing against stating it's a proven fact

Can't answer, sorry, it's right there on my screen.

i've checked 2 or 3 times in the physical & life sciences forum, and i can't find it.
strange.

 

[Loudmouth]

Just as a note, whois probably has me on ignore so feel free to repeat my arguments if someone sees fit.

maybe.
in the case of ERVs in regards to chimps and humans, this could easily be an incorrect method or coincidence.

That is denial. That isn't a scientific or rational reason for dismissing evidence.

without corroborating evidence from other such comparisons between different life forms there is no way to know for sure.

If we compare those ERV's between several primate species, would you be convinced?

as far as fossils go, there are very few, if any, transitional forms between species.

Again, straight denial. The transitional fossils have been shown. Ignoring them does not make them go away.

agreed, the diversity of life is indeed apparent.
i don't think it's as cut and dried as you may think though.

Straight denial with no evidence or reason for rejecting the evidence.

the formation of genes is essential to life, and abiogenesis is at the very heart of this process.

It isn't. The genes we find in life in the present evolved after the first life appeared.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Hi Ella, you still have some learning to do. Just when you thought it was settled and you are scientifically literate there is more to learn, and it reflects the Intelligence and Power of our Creator.

The lack of additional information you noticed from others "YEC", the interpretation of a 10,000 year old Earth without the appearance of "natural age", you have too have a need of additional information.

We all need to learn more. Major things to say the least.

A wise person will not rest upon his laurels or let his dogma dictate what he learns, but will instead be in earnest, untethered pursuit of knowledge until his final days. I've never stated that my mind is settled. Of course I have much to learn; I'm a teenager in my first year at college, and I'd be a fool to declare that my education is complete or to shutter my brain to new information that challenges me. What I admire so much about those in my life who do have very advanced education, exceptional credentials, and an abundance of accolades is that they crave knowledge as much as I do, they remain curious and engaged, and they are receptive. They are confident for substantial reasons, but they are not dogmatic. I believe that God created the world and all life within it, but do not have an immutable stance on the complex specifics of how, and will remain open to compelling scientific evidence. The incident I described earlier at the summer camp I attended when I was fifteen is what prompted me to join this forum seeking viewpoints that contrasted with my own to expand my horizons. I wanted to learn about a diversity of personal perspectives on Christianity in tandem with organized, robust academic learning.

How responsive are you to evidence that conflicts with your beliefs? How humble are you about continuous and expansive learning?

You've made me think of this:

You frequently boast about your educational pedigree and your supposed credentials, and yet I see you make minimal effort to actually put this advanced knowledge to use on this forum. If you are privileged with an exalted education and experience, why squander time here pontificating when you could actually be teaching us? It feels like you are wearing virtual tap shoes to dance in circles around the questions and the points presented to you, making a lot of noise and flair but not actually going anywhere. People like Loudmouth and SFS never have to brag about their education or their careers because it's evident they're knowledgeable from what they actually write on the subjects at hand. They put in consistent effort. They provide evidence and explanations to substantiate their statements. It seems like those who subscribe to YEC or OEC notions dedicate far more energy to tilting at the windmills about evolution than constructively presenting scientific evidence to give credence to their own views.

Btw - I think it's discourteous to address someone you are not on a first-name basis with as if you are.

 

[Astrophile]

life arose from the elements with no "outside" help.

If it were proved that God created the first procaryotic life-forms 3.8±0.3 billion years ago, would you accept that these first created life-forms evolved into the diversity of living things that we have now?

 

[Heissonear]

Why don't you apply that supposed extra knowledge to the evidence that has been presented?

How smart is the Creator. Tell me.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How smart is the Creator. Tell me.

The Creator isn't talking here. You are.

How smart are you? Tell us.

 

[bhsmte]

How smart is the Creator. Tell me.

Only you can show your education and knowledge is what you claim it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

How smart is the Creator. Tell me.

You are the one claiming to have a different interpretation and knowledge no one else has. Prove it.

 

[Butterfly99]

Thank you for your sincetre reply.

You mom is right, "aguing" Evolution or Creation is to be avoided. It will not lead to Salvation or other most important things God would have us know.

Enjoy your stellar science learning. I've always enjoyed learning about Mother Nature.

You're welcome. Well you don't have to argue with me but you can give me info about stellar evolution if you want. So do you not think stellar evolution is correct? It's not that helpful to just say you know all this stuff and then not share any of that stuff.

How smart is the Creator. Tell me.

How come you don't just give straight answers to questions? It's not arguing to just give an answer without beating around the bush about it.

 

[The Barbarian]

can you point to how i have misunderstood him?


i've only seen just this one analysis between chimps and humans.
if there are others then please post them.

The first one I'm aware of was a debate between Huxley and Owen, regarding the relationship of humans to other primates. Huxley demolished Owen's arguments, using his own research to show that the human brain has no structures that are not found in the chimpanzee brain.

There are numerous analyses of genes and DNA, all of which confirm that chimps are the closest living relatives of man.

Would you like to see some of them?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The first one I'm aware of was a debate between Huxley and Owen, regarding the relationship of humans to other primates. Huxley demolished Owen's arguments, using his own research to show that the human brain has no structures that are not found in the chimpanzee brain.

There are numerous analyses of genes and DNA, all of which confirm that chimps are the closest living relatives of man.

Would you like to see some of them?

Hi Barbarian,
Nice to see you again, after such a long time.
I'm not arguing against this but I'd 'like to see some of them' please.

Thanks,
Lewis

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

All the more so when the only people I hear arguing against it are creationists, who display their ignorance of what they theory actually says with almost every word they utter.

With evolutionists, 'ignorance of evolution' is decided upon someone not aware of moot points and in not treating evolution like a golden monolith. With evolutionists, they are all PhD scientists, even the nineteen year old sitting in his parent's basement eating Pop-Tarts and Mountain Dew.

 

[whois]

If it were proved that God created the first procaryotic life-forms 3.8±0.3 billion years ago, would you accept that these first created life-forms evolved into the diversity of living things that we have now?

the question really isn't about god.
the question is one of proof.
there simply isn't any, apparently we don't even have a plausible scenario of how it could have happened.
when teaching our children about evolution, i think this should be made clear to them.

whether one lifeform "evolved" into a different one, a bacteria to a whale for example, there isn't empirical evidence of that either.
i honestly don't see how evolutionists can say we have a "mountain of evidence" to support their theory.

like i said earlier, i will be the first to agree with evolution, but the evidence is simply not forthcoming.

 

[The Barbarian]

Hi Barbarian,
Nice to see you again, after such a long time.
I'm not arguing against this but I'd 'like to see some of them' please.

Thanks,
Lewis

So from where do I know you? I like seeing old friends again, but I'm not sure who you are. Tell me about it.


Here's a novel approach that validates an evolutionary relationship:

Enhancer Divergence and cis-Regulatory Evolution in the Human and Chimp Neural Crest.
Cell. 2015 Sep 24;163(1):68-83
Prescott SL1, Srinivasan R1, Marchetto MC2, Grishina I3, Narvaiza I2, Selleri L3, Gage FH4, Swigut T5, Wysocka J6
Abstract
cis-regulatory changes play a central role in morphological divergence, yet the regulatory principles underlying emergence of human traits remain poorly understood. Here, we use epigenomic profiling from human and chimpanzee cranial neural crest cells to systematically and quantitatively annotate divergence of craniofacial cis-regulatory landscapes. Epigenomic divergence is often attributable to genetic variation within TF motifs at orthologous enhancers, with a novel motif being most predictive of activity biases. We explore properties of this cis-regulatory change, revealing the role of particular retroelements, uncovering broad clusters of species-biased enhancers near genes associated with human facial variation, and demonstrating that cis-regulatory divergence is linked to quantitative expression differences of crucial neural crest regulators. Our work provides a wealth of candidates for future evolutionary studies and demonstrates the value of "cellular anthropology," a strategy of using in-vitro-derived embryonic cell types to elucidate both fundamental and evolving mechanisms underlying morphological variation in higher primates.

 

[The Barbarian]

Np9, a cellular protein of retroviral ancestry restricted to human, chimpanzee and gorilla, binds and regulates ubiquitin ligase MDM2.
Cell Cycle. 2015;14(16):2619-33
Heyne K1, Kölsch K, Bruand M, Kremmer E, Grässer FA, Mayer J, Roemer K.
Abstract
Humans and primates are long-lived animals with long reproductive phases. One factor that appears to contribute to longevity and fertility in humans, as well as to cancer-free survival, is the transcription factor and tumor suppressor p53, controlled by its main negative regulator MDM2. However, p53 and MDM2 homologs are found throughout the metazoan kingdom from Trichoplacidae to Hominidae. Therefore the question arises, if p53/MDM2 contributes to the shaping of primate features, then through which mechanisms. Previous findings have indicated that the appearances of novel p53-regulated genes and wild-type p53 variants during primate evolution are important in this context. Here, we report on another mechanism of potential relevance. Human endogenous retrovirus K subgroup HML-2 (HERV-K(HML-2)) type 1 proviral sequences were formed in the genomes of the predecessors of contemporary Hominoidea and can be identified in the genomes of Nomascus leucogenys (gibbon) up to Homo sapiens. We previously reported on an alternative splicing event in HERV-K(HML-2) type 1 proviruses that can give rise to nuclear protein of 9 kDa (Np9). We document here the evolution of Np9-coding capacity in human, chimpanzee and gorilla, and show that the C-terminal half of Np9 binds directly to MDM2, through a domain of MDM2 that is known to be contacted by various cellular proteins in response to stress. Np9 can inhibit the MDM2 ubiquitin ligase activity toward p53 in the cell nucleus, and can support the transactivation of genes by p53. Our findings point to the possibility that endogenous retrovirus protein Np9 contributes to the regulation of the p53-MDM2 pathway specifically in humans, chimpanzees and gorillas.

 

[whois]

The first one I'm aware of was a debate between Huxley and Owen, regarding the relationship of humans to other primates. Huxley demolished Owen's arguments, using his own research to show that the human brain has no structures that are not found in the chimpanzee brain.

There are numerous analyses of genes and DNA, all of which confirm that chimps are the closest living relatives of man.

Would you like to see some of them?

we already have analysis between chimps and humans.
in order to validate these analysis we must test them on other, different, forms of life, for 2 reasons:
1. to validate the methods used.
2. to ensure we aren't looking at coincidence.

there is reason to question the method:
digilander.libero.it/avifauna/classificazione/sequence6.htm

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

the question really isn't about god.
the question is one of proof.
there simply isn't any, apparently we don't even have a plausible scenario of how it could have happened.
when teaching our children about evolution, i think this should be made clear to them.

whether one lifeform "evolved" into a different one, a bacteria to a whale for example, there isn't empirical evidence of that either.
i honestly don't see how evolutionists can say we have a "mountain of evidence" to support their theory.

like i said earlier, i will be the first to agree with evolution, but the evidence is simply not forthcoming.

OH MY GOODNESS ME! You're still here? I'd have thought by now that you'd have moved on.

The evidence is there but you present no counter evidence just more of your vitriol nonsense. Ag no man, please post elsewhere.

 

[Gottservant]

I am an Evolutionist because it is the greatest reason there is to look like the Hulk and be poetic about the silence of.

 

[Astrophile]

the question really isn't about god.
the question is one of proof.
there simply isn't any, apparently we don't even have a plausible scenario of how it could have happened.

So far as I understand it, the Earth was lifeless when it formed, 4540±20 million years ago, and it has abundant life now. Therefore, at some time between the Earth's formation and the present day, life appeared for the first time. Do you accept that much?