Why Evolution is True (2)

[Subduction Zone]

you said "it was more" meaning that part of it was in effect a by product by evolution, and you didn't deny it. So this proves my point nicely, thankyou.

So you are claiming it is valid to point to Mormonism and Islam when arguing against Christianity and claiming "You mad my point"?

Perhaps I should ask you what you do not understand about evolution, since you clearly do not understand the subject that you are posting against.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Things are not right or wrong on the basis of who says them, it is on the basis of supporting premises being valid.

So when you are posting quotes, the sites you're mining them from are irrelevant so long as you believe they are correct, even if they are insipid conspiracy theorist sites with countdowns to hell on the front page or from posts on a European History & Trivia forum? But when someone posts from Wikipedia, you deride them for it with petty comments like "says the person quoting from Wikipedia!" and scoff at the validity of the source, even though in the majority of circumstances it actually is better cited, more balanced, and has more creditability than your own sites.

well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted. I tried it probably 12 or more times during the period of one week, all reversed by others who liked the scope of the article, even though it was technically inaccurate. Others have posted similar findings on the cite pages, but those are rarely ever seen.

but see my last post, it's getting ridiculous. Bias, misinformation, it's dangerous to an intellectual society.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason your edits to Wikipedia were repeatedly rejected is because your information was actually incorrect? Maybe it had nothing to do with others liking the scope of the article better, but of wanting to preserve correct information on the page. They might have also questioned the legitimacy of any sources you provided.

But yes, you are absolutely correct that misinformation is dangerous to an intellectual society.

As for Hitler......if I felt like you weren't going to just disregard everything that I wrote I'd share more about his religious beliefs and how he used Christianity as a tool for manipulation in his rise to power. I wrote a paper on it in 2012. Though, that really would belong in a different thread than this one since Hitler has nothing to do with the truth of evolution.

 

[createdtoworship]

So you are claiming it is valid to point to Mormonism and Islam when arguing against Christianity and claiming "You mad my point"?

Perhaps I should ask you what you do not understand about evolution, since you clearly do not understand the subject that you are posting against.

mormonism and islam have religious value of sorts, so you may use them in comparison. Your point is not being made very clear, try again. Thanks.

 

[createdtoworship]

So when you are posting quotes, the sites you're mining them from are irrelevant so long as you believe they are correct, even if they are insipid conspiracy theorist sites with countdowns to hell on the front page or from posts on a European History & Trivia forum? But when someone posts from Wikipedia, you deride them for it with petty comments like "says the person quoting from Wikipedia!" and scoff at the validity of the source, even though in the majority of circumstances it actually is better cited, more balanced, and has more creditability than your own sites.

You are free to say the same thing about my posts, you can't blame me for utilizing all of logic in my posts, when you seem to forget many inconsistencies.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason your edits to Wikipedia were repeatedly rejected is because your information was actually incorrect?

- it was not a controversial thing, it was obviously wrong as I said. It's just that sometimes fallacy sounds better than fact, and wikipedia is up for the highest bidder in the public realm. Anyone can edit.

Maybe it had nothing to do with others liking the scope of the article better, but of wanting to preserve correct information on the page. They might have also questioned the legitimacy of any sources you provided.

no, when consulting the talk pages of wikipedia other users had brought up the same observation, that it was lacking in obvious factual support....they simply used word salad, and text walls with no citation to basically say, "it's right and we are not changing it."

But yes, you are absolutely correct that misinformation is dangerous to an intellectual society.

wikipedia being one for sure, on health issues. Study Finds 90% of Health-Related Wikipedia Articles Contain Errors - iHealthBeat

As for Hitler......if I felt like you weren't going to just disregard everything that I wrote I'd share more about his religious beliefs and how he used Christianity as a tool for manipulation in his rise to power

this again, is begging the question as to the legitimacy of his Christianity.

. I wrote a paper on it in 2012. Though, that really would belong in a different thread than this one since Hitler has nothing to do with the truth of evolution.

your paper probably has nothing to do with evolution, but hitler for sure does:

Untitled Document

thanks for sharing what you know about hitler, it helps. I simply would have to disagree with it for the most part.

for one:

Ian Kershaw, the foremost biographer of Hitler, and Richard Evans, a prominent scholar on the Nazi period, both admit that social Darwinism influenced Hitler’s ideology. I have never heard anyone accuse them of illustrating Godwin’s Law.

secondly:

The assertion that Darwin was banned in Nazi Germany is completely wrong.
Do you have solid Evidence? this allegation is discussed in my source from Stan State:



http://www.csustan.edu/sites/defaul.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

 

[Naturalism]

I watched about 30 seconds of both

There's that creationist disingenuous response again. OK, so apparent you can watch videos on your Android?

Totally disagree with the assessment but read 3-4 pages from a a 500 page book, watch 30 seconds of a 15 minute video and boom you already know it all.

I have heard this argument many times before. Genetic similarities between apes and humans is the basic argument (95%).

That is actually incorrect, it's not an assessment of the total genome. It's actually a specific pair of chromosomes, and more specifically where they went in humans.

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

secondly: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much:

Sure, just tell that to a judge in a paternity case. I am sure it will go over well well!

No, no Judge, you see, although that child shares my paternal DNA, it's actually not mine you see! Creationists really are silly.

"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "

It doesn't even say that in the link you provided. Fail.

here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs

It doesn't even say that in the link you provided. Fail again.

(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)

What figure 1? There are no figures in your links.

thirdly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor.

Except a designer is not a falsifiable hypothesis. Here, you're saying it could have been a designer, ok, then what processes and mechanisms did the designer use to do this so we can establish if it's possibly true or not?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have to run right now, but Darwin's works were on the banned list in Nazi Germany, it is on this page:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

 

[Naturalism]

androids are nice, but my you tube app, is broke.

Fail, you don't need a youtube app to go to a web address. More disingenuous creationist double speak again.

Besides it takes more bars to watch streaming video than it does to post posts. So nice try.

It probably takes more time to learn something than skimming 5 pages or watching for 30 seconds, so sure the loss is all yours.

secondly I wasn't motivated to watch it

THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU ASKING FOR EVIDENCE? Again, more disingenuous creationist actions.

 

[createdtoworship]

Fail, you don't need a youtube app to go to a web address. More disingenuous creationist double speak again.



It probably takes more time to learn something than skimming 5 pages or watching for 30 seconds, so sure the loss is all yours.



THEN WHY THE HECK ARE YOU ASKING FOR EVIDENCE? Again, more disingenuous creationist actions.

I think you forgot , I watched it and rebutted it in my last few posts. besides I have k-9 browser on my android, blocks youtube by default.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you forgot , I watched it and rebutted it in my last few posts. besides I have k-9 browser on my android, blocks youtube by default.

No, you have never rebutted anything.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I watched about 30 seconds of both, and I have heard this argument many times before. Genetic similarities between apes and humans is the basic argument (95%).

first of all there are some problems with the said studies found here:
Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Evolution News & Views

secondly: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

from the above paper the specific figure is figure 1 found here:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

Percentage of genetic similarity between humans and animals

here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs:
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)
so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.

thirdly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor. Why are we not looking for human - cat transitions, or human - dog transitions? The evidence is all there right?

Thank you for the Commment

greydyll, this is the post where you failed to rebut the video.

Try again. Get some valid sources.

 

[Naturalism]

you said "it was more" meaning that part of it was in effect a by product by evolution, and you didn't deny it. So this proves my point nicely, thankyou.

No, even that is incorrect. It was a deliberate misunderstanding on part of the Russian Orthodoxy and misapplication of biology and in particular evolution of plants and in general science. They were not willing to let the cards fall where they would with regard to what the evidence actually showed, their own agenda corrupted the progress of the science there for decades. Their misunderstanding resulted in Lysenkoism.

Lysenkoism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Naturalism]

I think you forgot , I watched it and rebutted it in my last few posts. besides I have k-9 browser on my android, blocks youtube by default.

You watched 30 seconds of it, or so you say, after waffling endlessly for reasons why you couldn't/wouldn't watch it. That is not being genuine at all.

Not having the right browser is not my problem, download a new browser or maybe a new phone that works with popular video sites.

 

[Naturalism]

I rebutted it simply by showing inconsistencies in evolutionary thought, hypocrisy and more. We have more similarities to cats genetically speaking, thus we should be looking for cat-human transitions, not ape-human.

and this is not happening, see my other post.

The other post with the link that has quotes that we share more genetic similarity with cats, even though the links you provided don't have those quotes in any of them anywhere. Very funny stuff.

 

[Naturalism]

well like I said, I tried to have an error removed from Wikipedia (obvious error), and it was reverted.

Where? When? For what?

 

[createdtoworship]

Where? When? For what?

that would reveal personal information that I am not willing to disclose.

 

[createdtoworship]

You watched 30 seconds of it, or so you say, after waffling endlessly for reasons why you couldn't/wouldn't watch it. That is not being genuine at all.

Not having the right browser is not my problem, download a new browser or maybe a new phone that works with popular video sites.

I fealt bad for you, not giving it a chance. I gave it 30 seconds, probably more than it deserved, seeing I rebutted it in one post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I fealt bad for you, not giving it a chance. I gave it 30 seconds, probably more than it deserved, seeing I rebutted it in one post.

Again, you did not. Your sources were not valid. We went over that already.

 

[createdtoworship]

The other post with the link that has quotes that we share more genetic similarity with cats, even though the links you provided don't have those quotes in any of them anywhere. Very funny stuff.

here let me post it again:
]: any small amount of similarity doesn't mean much: for examples we are very genetically similar to pigs as well as well as other mammals:
"Cats have 90% of homologous genes with humans, 82% with dogs, 80% with cows, 79% with chimpanzees, 69% with rats and 67% with mice. "
sources:
Initial sequence and comparative analysis of the cat genome

now this link is in pink so you will see it this time
http://genome.cshlp.org/content/17/11/1675/T1.expansion.html
now look in the chart at the percentage of genes represented, and you will see upwards of 90% similarity with cats and humans (homologous)

here is the 96% similarity as well to pigs:
Do pigs share 98 per cent of human genes? › Ask an Expert (ABC Science)

(we actually have more homologous genes similiar to cats that we do to chimpanzees) (see figure 1)
so you can easily see how such information is misleading and inconclusive.

secondly: similarities in the genome as could possibly be due to a similar designer, not a similar ancestor. Why are we not looking for human - cat transitions, or human - dog transitions? The evidence is all there right?

 

[dad]

You watched 30 seconds of it, or so you say, ....

On one hand evos seem to villify creation sites and claim they are worthless, and on the other you seem to expect people to go to sites you recommend and slowly savor them. Have you conditioner that we might be flushing, which takes little time!?

 

[dad]

Again, you did not. Your sources were not valid. We went over that already.

You should talk?