Why Evolution is True (3)

[dad]

The only thing that is absurd is your hand-waving and ad hoc past state fantasy.

Translated for lurkers....he cannot make anything valid in all his house of evo cards without that same state past he cannot prove. Flush.

 

[46AND2]

Translated for lurkers....he cannot make anything valid in all his house of evo cards without that same state past he cannot prove. Flush.

I have given plenty of evidence for same state past. Not my fault you take a stance that can literally support ANY concept. Want to deny an observation? No problem. Just make up some malarkey about how things were different in the past. One could, using your method, even refute arguments that go against the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Your past state explanations are so malleable, they explain absolutely nothing.

 

[46AND2]

I have given plenty of evidence for same state past. Not my fault you take a stance that can literally support ANY concept. Want to deny an observation? No problem. Just make up some malarkey about how things were different in the past. One could, using your method, even refute arguments that go against the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Your past state explanations are so malleable, they explain absolutely nothing.

Your explanations are like a child trying to get out of trouble when caught doing something wrong. Just make up some whimsical story, and presto!, no gettin grounded. An answer for everything, those kids...

 

[createdtoworship]

The "study" that found 60-70% is, as far as I know, the only one of it's kind. No scientific study has published results in that manner. So, comparing it to ANY other similarity percentage study and drawing comparisons is apples to oranges.

thats because it takes sequencing into consideration, while most will find say a homologous gene and base it's percentages on the one in common, not on sequencing that is uncommon.

 

[dad]

I have given plenty of evidence for same state past.

Nothing that did not require us FIRST believing in it! We might as well believe the spagetti monster was the first ancestor.

 

[createdtoworship]

It doesn't matter whether "your" method is the right or wrong way, or not. That is not what the issue is here.

The issue is that you are comparing two different methods; apples and oranges.

And no, we didn't evolve from cats. We didn't evolve from chimps, either. We DO share a common ancestor with both. Our common ancestor with cats was much, much longer ago than our common ancestor with chimps.

sad, truly sad.

I will call you a feline now.

here kitty kitty

besides with 90% homologous genes in common and chimps not much higher, how can you honestly say our common ancestor with cats was "much longer ago."?

with no evidence?

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I don't.

Especially since it is not claimed that feathers evolved from scales.

Do you see how incredibly illogical your demand is?



ETA: You also are much less likely to make foolish mistakes as you did in this post if you understood the nature of evidence.

you have to prove I don't understand evidence.

And there was no begging the question on the validity of evolution. The validity of evolution was proven long long before we were worrying about such details.

you have to prove evolution

But neither of these above proofs will you give me, or even attempt.

Such is the nature of debate with you.

 

[46AND2]

thats because it takes sequencing into consideration, while most will find say a homologous gene and base it's percentages on the one in common, not on sequencing that is uncommon.

Not...the...point. I think you are completely wrong, and out of your element, here, but it doesn't even matter. This topic has been covered on these forums before. Loudmouth and sfs explained it thoroughly.

Again, my issue was with you comparing two different methods of measurement to conclude that we are more similar to cats.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, I am not going to do that. That is too far outside my area of expertise. Ask sfs for help. I already pointed out how you incorrectly compared different measurements.

I was talking about helping you understand the nature of evidence. What makes evidence valid or not. Then you could answer when people claim that you are using poor sources.

I noticed your signature, ironic.

I mean because macro evolution is unobserved, and how can it possibly test any hypothesis, without observation, in fact how can it even be a theory. How can it even be falsifiable without observation to begin with?

again your theory, or lack of a science theory, is apparent.

 

[46AND2]

Nothing that did not require us FIRST believing in it!

Irony meter pegged!

 

[Subduction Zone]

sad, truly sad.

I will call you a feline now.

here kitty kitty

besides with 90% homologous genes in common and chimps not much higher, how can you honestly say our common ancestor with cats was "much longer ago."?

with no evidence?

If the rate of evolution is fairly constant the difference between cats and humans is 10% compared to 2% difference between man and chimp. That would take 5 times as long. So that split would be roughly 35 million years ago compared to the 7 million year split between man and chimp.

And the shared ancestor with a cat was not a feline. You still need some work on understanding clades.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I noticed your signature, ironic.

I mean because macro evolution is unobserved, and how can it possibly test any hypothesis, without observation, in fact how can it even be a theory. How can it even be falsifiable without observation to begin with?

again your theory, or lack of a science theory, is apparent.

Too bad that you did not understand it.

Also you keep forgetting that macro evolution has been observed. You have been told countless times how it has been observed.

Now would you like to work on your understanding my signature?

 

[46AND2]

sad, truly sad.

I will call you a feline now.

here kitty kitty

besides with 90% homologous genes in common and chimps not much higher, how can you honestly say our common ancestor with cats was "much longer ago."?

with no evidence?

It has taken 6 million years for us to be as little as 2-4% different. Cats are anywhere from 2.5 to 5 times more different from us than chimps are. Pretty simple logic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And gradyll as a bonus I could even explain how your signature uses an appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

OK so you admit to being relatives with the beast, and also a potato. Great, now one final admission before you slink off, will you admit you think flatworms having sex are why mankind is here and exists??

The successful reproduction of the common ancestor of today's flatworms and you and me is of course the reason we are here. You are the result of 3 and half billion years of successful reproduction, which is why reproduction and everything related to it is often on your mind. If love, relationships, mating and raising a family weren't on your mind so often your line would be more likely to disappear. This also encompasses things that make you an attractive mate to the other sex, which covers directly or indirectly the majority of everything else you think about. Status for instance covers everything from career to pride to reputation to social confidence to 'keeping up with the Jones's next door'. Whether you recognise that or not is your problem, but you are what you are: an organism programmed by its evolutionary history towards the goal of survival and successful reproduction.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Just out of interest, have you ever been abroad?

Yes- 11 countries, including 5 in Europe.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Yes- 11 countries, including 5 in Europe.

Did you notice how your religious views were generally regarded in those countries? Or did the subject not seem to come up much?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

I visited around 20 Christian Churches, and I noticed all tour guides referred to "B.C." as "Before Christ". But you haven't really asked me a relevant question yet, so I will ask you. I do know Europe has diverse beliefs like the USA, though not 77% Christian like the USA. Apparently Great Britain is 54% Christian.



What evidence do you base your belief in Darwinian evolution, and what is your academic background?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I visited around 20 Christian Churches, and I noticed all tour guides referred to "B.C." as "Before Christ". But you haven't really asked me a relevant question yet, so I will ask you.

Yes I did, I asked you if you noticed how your religious views were generally regarded in those countries. If you didn't get a proper feeling of how your views were regarded that would be fair enough, but if you had you would remember.

What evidence do you base your belief in Darwinian evolution, and what is your academic background?

That's relevant for you to answer about how your views are regarded abroad is it? My background is environmental science. What's yours?

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I do know Europe has diverse beliefs like the USA, though not 77% Christian like the USA. Apparently Great Britain is 54% Christian.

Ah, you've expanded your answer.

54% christian in the UK sounds a bit low to be honest. But, and this is a big but, being a christian doesn't mean the same thing in the UK as it does in fundamentalist america. Here it's just a box that you tick on a form in the same way you might say your local football club is Blackburn Rovers. It doesn't mean you actively follow the club. Do you see?