Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Larniavc]

As far as I know a mammal in the Cambrian layer hasn't been found

Which would be a potential falsification of ToE.

In direct contradiction to what you said.

The fact that a mammal in the Cambrian layer has not been found is supporting evidence of ToE.

Can you now admit that ToE IS falsifiable (in direct contradiction to one of your previous posts)?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

So you now understand that ToE CAN be falsified (the aforementioned mammal in Cambrian layer).

Progress!

But could there be other reasons aside from evolutionary ones, for there being no mammals in the Cambrian layer, which would lead Birch to believe that every observation can be conveniently fit within the evolutionary model?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

What do you see as the "key tenets?"

The key tenets of evolution would likely be Darwinism vs Lamarckism, alleged evidence of common ancestry, evidence from the fossil record, and as well as quite simply the very concept of a development of organisms from random mutations over millions of years into the diverse set of species we see today.

What do you see as the key tenets of the theory of evolution? I am unsure as to which tenets Birch had in mind, though he indicates the main ones that underlay the theory.

 

[CrystalDragon]

God says one thing ..you(man)say another -whose word shall i exercise faith in do you think ?

Keep in mind God's word is what man says God's word is. Jesus never wrote anything down and the Gospels were written decades after his life on Earth.

 

[SteveB28]

Oh thats very incorrect.

ToE implies a literal reading of Genesis (religious dogma) is wrong.

It says nothing about any holy book.

.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God says one thing ..you(man)say another -whose word shall i exercise faith in do you think ?

In this case, man's word doesn't require faith since there is verifiable evidence instead.
Only the word claimed or believed to be god's, does.

 

[rjs330]

Evolution is a fact.

Then why is it a theory.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Perhaps precision would help in questions.
You say ToE, there is no such thing.
And it is certainly not a fact as Dawkins says!

Evolution, as in common ancestry of living things, is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory, as in reproduction with inheritable variation followed by natural selection, is the proposed testable mechanism by which that happens, which is the best explanation that currently fits all the data and is contradicted by none.

ToE is not a precise scientific definition.

Except that it is.

ToE is a complex mish mash of much smaller (eg molecular biology genetic inheritance) theories, unproven and part proven hypotheses like "common descent"

No. It seems like you need to inform yourself a bit.
Common ancestry, as mentioned before, is a genetic fact.

It's as factual as when we use DNA testing to determine that your claimed child is your actual biological child.

I can also produce a plausibility argument that ensures common descent is only ever a hypothesis from pure logic. If life was sufficiently probable to happen somewhere by accident, then it was clearly probable enough to happen in several places. And if that is so, then there may be one or many common descendants, so disproving the ability to prove common descent!

That made no sense and only exposes again how ill-informed you are on this topic.

The reality is we know that small changes can lead to adapting characteristics so the morphology of species can drift.

And we also know that small changes accumulate over generations through inheritability of DNA.

And many small fish make up for a big whale.

But knowing you can get closer to the moon by walking across the earth, is a long way from the intellectual leap that you can get to the moon by the same process of walking!

That would make sense, if it were comparable. But it off course isn't. There's nothing in our DNA that can't be explained through evolutionary mechanisms.

But you are welcome to identify this "magical barrier" you are implying.

there is no evidence of the birth of a new species with for example different chromosome numbers

You mean... besides us observing exactly that?
It's called chromosomal fusion. Look it up.

All there is is conjecture, and that is not an easy problem to solve, since it involves two unlikely genetic accidents, that are even more unlikely to produce a viable life form, but lucky enough to happen close enough to mate with each other.

That again makes no sense and only exposes more ignorance.
EVERY newborn has plenty of mutations. It's called the mutation rate. You have some 50-ish mutations in your DNA, just like every other human. It didn't make us sterile, now did it?

In short big holes in an assumption.

In short, just plain old ignorance again.

Jury is out.

No. The case was actually settled some 2 centuries ago...

You should try and catch up.

 

[durangodawood]

It says nothing about any holy book.

.

???

Genesis... thats part of a holy book, right? I mean a book people consider holy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but seeing something in a lab, over whatever timeframe, is more convincing then making educated guesses about fossil records and genome similarities from the distant past.

Comparing genomes and observing the nested hierarchies thereof, is done right before your eyes, using DNA of extant species.

And the same goes for comparative anatomy of fossisl, by the way.

None of both require a timemachine.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Comparing genomes and observing the nested hierarchies thereof, is done right before your eyes, using DNA of extant species.

And the same goes for comparative anatomy of fossisl, by the way.

None of both require a timemachine.

It's still detective work, it isn't seeing something happen in front of you. You look at similarities and patterns and make conclusions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

As far as I am aware the Chromosome 2 fusion evidence (as a mechanism for ape to human, rather than biologic possibility) is little more than conjecture, not least because the genomic material so produced, or even at the fusion site, is at best similar, not the same. But also the hooker...it needs two of these accidents to occur, be viable organisms for mating, and find each other to breed. You make it sound far more defined than it is.

That is just false.
Survival of Chromosomal Changes

A chromosomal fusion in one individual doesn't necessarily prevent it from mating with individuals without said fusion, at all.

Perhaps you should ask the opposition question, how did the higher numbers of chromosomes come to be, to allow a fusion. Surely the fewer number is a stage on route to the larger, not the other way round.

Because we find telomeres in the middle of the chromosome, which are things that are usually only found at the "end" of it.

And off course, when pulled apart at the fusion site, we get perfect matches with chromosome 2 and 13 (= the one we seem to be missing) of the other great apes.

So yea....

How do you breath with your head in the sand, btw?

 

[Alithis]

Which part of ToE has been shown to be incorrect?

none of it

 

[Speedwell]

Then why is it a theory.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Evolution occurs. There are species which were once alive on the Earth which are no longer, and species now alive which have not always been. There are a large number fossilized remains of once living creatures which strongly suggests that this diversity occurred through frequent accumulating small changes. New species have been observed to form from existing ones in the same manner. That is evolution. It's a fact.

The theory of evolution attempts to explain how evolution happens. The theory proposes that evolution happens due to constant random heritable variation subjected to natural selection.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why is it a theory.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

Gravity is also both a theory and a fact. There is a theory of gravity, it works quite well. Surely just because there is a theory of gravity you won't jump off of a cliff stating that "gravity is just a theory"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

But could there be other reasons aside from evolutionary ones, for there being no mammals in the Cambrian layer, which would lead Birch to believe that every observation can be conveniently fit within the evolutionary model?

No one has found a reasonable one. Yes, there have been other explanations. Those have all been rather thoroughly refuted.

 

[Speedwell]

???

Genesis... thats part of a holy book, right? I mean a book people consider holy.

That's correct, but the theory of evolution makes no mention of it. As a practical matter, the proposition that biological evolution has occurred over long periods of time and that all living things share a common biological ancestor contradicts the way some people read the holy book, but that is not the fault of the theory of evolution.

 

[Larniavc]

But could there be other reasons aside from evolutionary ones, for there being no mammals in the Cambrian layer, which would lead Birch to believe that every observation can be conveniently fit within the evolutionary model?

Which would lead ToE to be falsified.

What part of that are you not understanding?

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Which would lead ToE to be falsified.

What part of that are you not understanding?

The part is that this may not be a unique observation upon which the ToE is the sole explanation. If other explanations exist, then this observation's falsifiability is irrelevant, because it may be a moot point to begin with.

 

[Alithis]

Keep in mind God's word is what man says God's word is. Jesus never wrote anything down and the Gospels were written decades after his life on Earth.

and then he wrote it on our hearts by the holy Spirit ..if you say any of what is written is only what man says then your faith is no longer in God but in man. but that makes man a God unto himself .. But by your statement you annul the word of god and lower it to the mere ramblings of men . but then you name yourself after the dragon to ,so why should be surprised . If you believe any of it is ;just what men say ' then you can have faith in none of it .