Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[whois]

There is an unspoken, unmerited, unprofessional, unscientific, and unmentionable opression on those who speak out against the theory of evolution.

yes, that does seem to be the case.
noble gives a fine example of this in regards to barbera mcclintock.
her work went against the established dogma of evolution.
she experienced so much scepticism (ridicule) that she quit publishing her work.
she wound up getting a nobel prize for her work 40 years after the fact because she was right.

Truth is being squashed in order to keep the theory of evolution on life support.

see above for an example.

 

[justlookinla]

This means that there is no expectation of a nested hierarchy from a designer. Thanks for making my argument for me.

It's not about what you expect, it's about what the designer has in his design plan.

Yes, I did.

According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life. Some of the macroscopic properties that characterize all of life are (1) replication, (2) heritability (characteristics of descendents are correlated with those of ancestors), (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree.

If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion). Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
​

That is the evidence for a universal common ancestor, the shared features in all ife.

There's not a single solitary example in your post of starting with the first life form, and using the evidence produced by the scientific method on that life form, and subsequent life forms, to substantiate the view that random/chance mutations produced humanity from that first life form.

It is evidence for evolution through random mutations and selection.

There is no evidence that random/chance mutations produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

 

[whois]

In my opinion evolution does not touch on the origins of life because it would prove evolution seriously flawed.

my guess is science has already deemed it impossible.

 

[Loudmouth]

It's not about what you expect, it's about what the designer has in his design plan.

Then explain why a designer would go out of their way to make life look like it evolved when it really didn't.

There's not a single solitary example in your post of starting with the first life form,

I just showed you the evidence for a universal common ancestor. I started with that evidence.

There is no evidence that random/chance mutations produced humanity from an alleged single life form of long long ago.

Ka/Ks ratios and the nested hierarchy are exactly that evidence, as already discussed.

 

[bhsmte]

yes, that does seem to be the case.
noble gives a fine example of this in regards to barbera mcclintock.
her work went against the established dogma of evolution.
she experienced so much scepticism (ridicule) that she quit publishing her work.
she wound up getting a nobel prize for her work 40 years after the fact because she was right.

see above for an example.

And yet, this Nobel fellow, agrees that evolution happens and you still go on and on about this?????????????

 

[bhsmte]

my guess is science has already deemed it impossible.

Feel free, to back your "guess" with evidence.

 

[whois]

The theory of evolution predicts what these bones should and shouldn't look like. Bones that fit the predictions made by the theory are evidence for that theory. The lack of bones that do not fit those predictions also helps confirm the theory.

i disagree.
given an organism and the future environment, evolution CANNOT tell you what that organism will become.
only the environment itself can dictate what organisms survive

 

[Loudmouth]

i disagree.
given an organism and the future environment, evolution CANNOT tell you what that organism will become.

However, they can tell you what they have been since the morphology of modern species is dependent on their evolutionary history. This means that we can predict what fossils should and shouldn't look like.

 

[whois]

The human genome contains about 3 Billion base pairs, so you're off by a few factors. (About 370Meg of data not counting addressing that's required by the system) and that's no where near the 700 terabytes of data mentioned.

okay, that sounds more like it.
still, 375MB is a lot of data to pack inside something we can't see with the unaided eye.
this alone almost screams design.

ETA I've got a 64Gig card and it only weights about 0.5 Grams.

one gram of which is almost 1.5TB, a far cry from 700.

one other thing, DNA has built-in error correction.
i doubt your 64GB card has that.

 

[Loudmouth]

okay, that sounds more like it.
still, 375MB is a lot of data to pack inside something we can't see with the unaided eye.
this alone almost screams design.

Why?

one other thing, DNA has built-in error correction.

No, it doesn't. Proteins are required for DNA repair.

 

[whois]

And yet, this Nobel fellow, agrees that evolution happens and you still go on and on about this?????????????

it's a fact isn't it?
barbera was scorned for her work.
work that went against evolution.
they scorned her so much that she threw up her hands and quit.

and you don't call that a concerted effort???
she had the evidence, solid evidence, and look what they did to her.
i'm sorry, but that isn't the type of people i want to be associated with.

and it's still going on today.

 

[Loudmouth]

it's a fact isn't it?
barbera was scorned for her work.
work that went against evolution.
they scorned her so much that she threw up her hands and quit.

and you don't call that a concerted effort???
she had the evidence, solid evidence, and look what they did to her.
i'm sorry, but that isn't the type of people i want to be associated with.

and it's still going on today.

What evidence did McClintock have that changes in DNA sequence were non-random with respect to fitness?

 

[whois]

What evidence did McClintock have that changes in DNA sequence were non-random with respect to fitness?

i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.
40 years after the fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.
40 years after the fact.

What work done by McClintock went against evolution?

 

[whois]

What work done by McClintock went against evolution?

i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.
40 years after the fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

i don't know, but she won a nobel prize for it.
40 years after the fact.

You don't know? You sure seemed to know just a few posts ago:

it's a fact isn't it?
barbera was scorned for her work.
work that went against evolution.
they scorned her so much that she threw up her hands and quit.

and you don't call that a concerted effort???
she had the evidence, solid evidence, and look what they did to her.
i'm sorry, but that isn't the type of people i want to be associated with.

and it's still going on today.​

McClintock is famous for discovering transposons in maize. The only thing scientists were skeptical of is that certain genes could move about so easily. It wasn't considered a challenge to evolution.

 

[whois]

McClintock is famous for discovering transposons in maize. The only thing scientists were skeptical of is that certain genes could move about so easily. It wasn't considered a challenge to evolution.

if you knew this, then why was you asking if i knew?

she was scorned so much that she quit publishing her work.
now, why would they do that to her if it wasn't a challenge to evolution?
it went against their dogma, that's why.
and she even had the evidence to prove it.

barbera: here's the evidence.
evolutionist: no, no, we don't want to see it . . . you hussy.

yeah, a fine group of people for sure.

 

[Loudmouth]

if you knew this, then why was you asking if i knew?

If you didn't know, then why did you make those allegations?

she was scorned so much that she quit publishing her work.
now, why would they do that to her if it wasn't a challenge to evolution?

Why would it require a challenge to evolution in order for geneticists to be skeptical of someone's findings?

it went against their dogma, that's why.

It went against the consensus view that genomes were more stable than what McClintock was proposing, but it wasn't a challenge to evolution.

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proposed that the majority of peptic ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Heliobacter pylori. They were widely criticized, but the data won out. People didn't go against them because their discovery challenged evolution in any way.

 

[JacksBratt]

Off topic, but the bible doesn't mention a 7 year peace deal.

In the scripture below a day is one year.

Daniel 9: 27

27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week,7 and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. zAnd on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until athe decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”

 

[whois]

If you didn't know, then why did you make those allegations?

uh, facts, not allegations.

Why would it require a challenge to evolution in order for geneticists to be skeptical of someone's findings?

what exactly are you saying here?
these people weren't only sceptical, they were sceptical to the point where she quit publishing.
why would they do that if it wasn't a challenge?
because they are sadists perhaps?
the bottom line is barberas work went against the established dogma of the time, and they refused her work even though she had the evidence, evidence that won her a nobel prize 40 years later.
how can you possibly just wave that away like it's no big deal.

and the really crappy part is, it's still going on.