Why do you believe in the evolution theory?

[ThinkForYourself]

of course you don't.
ever wonder why?

Um no. It's because I haven't done any research as I'm not particularly interested in knowing this information.

how can you parrot this stuff when respected sources say otherwise?

There are no respected sources I'm aware of who say man didn't evolve from a ape.

So, it comes down to who I'm going to believe:

Tangible evidence supplied by the group of men and women who gave us cars, phones, modern medicine, airplanes, satellites, space probes, landed a vehicle on Mars, and put a man on the moon. And all of their evidence and thinking is available for my perusal in journals so I can double check everything.

Or I can believe the tales of bronze age goat herders.

i was going to say "how can true scientists allow this sort of thing" but soon realized they would be chastised if they did.

What a bunch of complete nonsense. Do you seriously believe this?

In a country that is over 50% Christian, where roughly 1/2 the people believe Genesis and Noah's Ark are literally true, that has a blatantly anti-atheist News network in FOX News, where Christianity controls hundreds of billions of dollars, isn't going to give a fair hearing to a creationist scientist. That is absolutely mind-numbingly irrational.

 

[justlookinla]

Do you know how humans are made? Have you been taught about the birds and the bees?

Using the sscientific method, why not give evidence of how humans were made from an alleged single life form of long long ago?

 

[JacksBratt]

What is this?

This is a poster of a whole bunch of different skulls they have found. They have no proof that any are the relative, ancestor, cousin or father of any other one. They are bones and all bones say is that it lived and it died. Any other info is speculation, assumption and extrapolation.

 

[JacksBratt]

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Answer the question, do we know how first life was created?
​

No, we don't.

I guess, if you cannot say how the first life was created, you cannot say that it wasn't a whole bunch of lives of different kinds of creatures all created at the same time, can you?

You cannot say it was one life created all by it's lonesome and over eons of time ended up being the ancestor of every plant and animal.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Just:>>The transitional fossils, a small part of the mountain of evidence, helping to clearly demonstrate man evolved from apes.

Dear Just, False, since Humans were made some 10 Billion years BEFORE any other living creature. Gen 2:4-7 The false assumption that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes is provably Wrong. Scientists can't measure the invisible intelligence difference between animals and Humans, but God does. God Bless you

The woo is strong with this one.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

This is a poster of a whole bunch of different skulls they have found. They have no proof that any are the relative, ancestor, cousin or father of any other one. They are bones and all bones say is that it lived and it died. Any other info is speculation, assumption and extrapolation.

Careful there. People might say your religious ideas are speculation, assumption, and extrapolation. How could you refute that?

 

[JacksBratt]

Careful there. People might say your religious ideas are speculation, assumption, and extrapolation. How could you refute that?

Pick one of my religious views and show how it is a speculation.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess, if you cannot say how the first life was created, you cannot say that it wasn't a whole bunch of lives of different kinds of creatures all created at the same time, can you?

If a whole bunch of different kinds of creatures were all created at the same time, then why don't we see that in the fossil record? Why do we see hundreds of millions of years between the earliest fish and the first terrestrial tetrapods?

You cannot say it was one life created all by it's lonesome and over eons of time ended up being the ancestor of every plant and animal.

Actually, we can say that.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

We have evidence that all life shares a common ancestor. What we don't have evidence for, or very little, is how that first life came about.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Originally Posted by justlookinla

Answer the question, do we know how first life was created?
​

I guess, if you cannot say how the first life was created, you cannot say that it wasn't a whole bunch of lives of different kinds of creatures all created at the same time, can you?

You are correct.

It is possible that Santa Claus' elves made all life on earth at the same time. Or Zeus. Or Mithra. Or an invisible purple unicorn that lives in your toilet bowl. It is all possible.

But supernatural beings creating life doesn't really sound too plausible, does it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Pick one of my religious views and show how it is a speculation.

It is as easy as your assertion of the same with regards to evolution. The words fall of the tongue without any hindrance.

I'll grant that doesn't mean the words are true.

 

[whois]

No. The paradigm was that DNA consisted of genes and telomeres and centromeres. There was no non-coding DNA that randomly moved around the genome.

Would you like to explain how transposons prevent small changes from accumulating in DNA?

i never said it prevented it.
transposons show species can change without it.

it seems reasonable that these transposons can be responsible for new gene production because the sequence of genes determine protien synthesis.
the right sequence can result in either an entirely new protien or a protien that has been misfiolded.
it isn''t hard to assume that in a few generations, an entirely new organism can arise.

 

[whois]

There are no respected sources I'm aware of who say man didn't evolve from a ape.

i believe "nature" did exactly that when it published a graph of the primate fossil tree.
the position of the found fossils can lead to any conlusion you wish to make.
in other words there aren't enough fossils to come to any conclusion.

So, it comes down to who I'm going to believe:

that's exactly right.
why wouldn't you believe "nature" when it says we only have 3.8% of the required fossils?

Tangible evidence supplied by the group of men and women who gave us cars, phones, modern medicine, airplanes, satellites, space probes, landed a vehicle on Mars, and put a man on the moon. And all of their evidence and thinking is available for my perusal in journals so I can double check everything.

again correct.
the information i posted above comes from those people.

What a bunch of complete nonsense. Do you seriously believe this?

believe what?
"nature"?
i have no reason to doubt it.

 

[Loudmouth]

i believe "nature" did exactly that when it published a graph of the primate fossil tree.
the position of the found fossils can lead to any conlusion you wish to make.
in other words there aren't enough fossils to come to any conclusion.

All of the fossils are consistent with the phylogeny predicted by the theory of evolution. Unless you have a paper showing how the morphological phylogeny diverges greatly from the molecular phylogenies, then you really can't make that claim.

As a specific example, can you show us the evidence for humans being more closely related to spider monkeys than chimps?

that's exactly right.
why wouldn't you believe "nature" when it says we only have 3.8% of the required fossils?

All of the fossils we have are consistent with evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Well, one of them might be your ancestor. Most certainly they are all your uncles, aunts and cousins. We are after all, we humans, just one big dysfunctional family, and even fundamentalists admit that, so the human ones are your relatives and the non-human ones are the only matters that are under contention.
Did your uncle "transit" into you?

No, but my uncle wasn't a transitional fossil either, he was human like me.

The claim is that the image shows transitional fossils. What is transitioning into what?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, but my uncle wasn't a transitional fossil either, he was human like me.

The claim is that the image shows transitional fossils. What is transitioning into what?

The transition is from a common ancestor shared with other apes to modern humans. The transitionals should have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, and that is exactly what those fossils have.

 

[justlookinla]

You are correct.

It is possible that Santa Claus' elves made all life on earth at the same time. Or Zeus. Or Mithra. Or an invisible purple unicorn that lives in your toilet bowl. It is all possible.

But supernatural beings creating life doesn't really sound too plausible, does it?

Your sig image is simply a concoction of skulls with no order or scientific conclusion (using the scientific method)?

 

[justlookinla]

The transition is from a common ancestor shared with other apes to modern humans. The transitionals should have a mixture of basal ape and modern human features, and that is exactly what those fossils have.

Soooo...which skull transitioned into what skull?

 

[whois]

All of the fossils are consistent with the phylogeny predicted by the theory of evolution. Unless you have a paper showing how the morphological phylogeny diverges greatly from the molecular phylogenies, then you really can't make that claim.

absurd.
morphological phylogeny is a big word for genetic analysis.
genetic material is not preserved in fossils.

 

[Split Rock]

i never said it prevented it.
transposons show species can change without it.

it seems reasonable that these transposons can be responsible for new gene production because the sequence of genes determine protien synthesis.
the right sequence can result in either an entirely new protien or a protien that has been misfiolded.
it isn''t hard to assume that in a few generations, an entirely new organism can arise.

Very interesting... do you have any specific examples of this occurring?

 

[Split Rock]

absurd.
morphological phylogeny is a big word for genetic analysis.
genetic material is not preserved in fossils.

No, he is refering to phyogeny based on morphological features. It is how phyogenies were done before DNA sequencing.