Why is evolution taught in our schools?

Dave-W said:

I can understand that, you being an atheist.

By the same token, demanding evidence or a scientific explanation for matters of faith is foreign to me.

Click to expand...

How do you find out which, if any, of 2 mutually exclusive "matters of faith" is accurate?
I distinguish truth from fiction through evidence.

If person A believes X on faith, while person B believes Y on faith, and X contradicts Y, then by definition either X or Y or both is wrong.

How do you find out which it is, if not by evidence?

inquiring mind said:

Notice how your point about "Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.
We have never observed one species turn into another species" was quickly deflected with volcanoes, something made from dust, and how faith doesn't pertain.

Click to expand...

Google "observed speciation".

That goes for you to @Dave-W

Dave-W said:

I can understand that, you being an atheist.

Click to expand...

So you admit that I am the more rational, thanks.

By the same token, demanding evidence or a scientific explanation for matters of faith is foreign to me.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that there is no evidence for creation?
I find that odd.

But not as odd as the fact that you did not even acknowledge any of this:


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it - I have posted this more than a dozen times for creationists who claim that there is no evidence for evolution:

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

tas8831 said:

OL!

Ok....
As a design engineer, do you put the same errors in different designs?

Click to expand...

LOL!!! indeed!

One man's error is another's feature. Yes there were things that looked like errors that I repeated - and had good reason to do so.

DogmaHunter said:

How do you find out which, if any, of 2 mutually exclusive "matters of faith" is accurate?
I distinguish truth from fiction through evidence.

Click to expand...

Except when there is evidence, it can no longer be called "faith," and without faith it is impossible to please God.

Dave-W said:

Yeah - I noted all of that.

But until God opens their understanding ....

Click to expand...

I was trying to get at your level of understanding of the various concepts of what 'counts' as science - I know that 'inquiring mind' is devoid of such understanding, I put him on ignore some time ago.
But you mentioned repeatability, and I wanted to understand what your take on that is, scientifically.
That you did not answer tells me all I need to know.

Regarding understanding being opened by God - I would settle for some evidence for any of the tall tales in scripture attributed to the work of God.

Dave-W said:

LOL!!! indeed!

One man's error is another's feature. Yes there were things that looked like errors that I repeated - and had good reason to do so.

Click to expand...

So what would be the good reason to put the same errors in the GULO gene in 3 primate species?

inquiring mind said:

Notice how your point about "Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.
We have never observed one species turn into another species" was quickly deflected with volcanoes, something made from dust, and how faith doesn't pertain.

Click to expand...

Notice how I was not actually responding to his posts in which he dodged with references to
"Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.
We have never observed one species turn into another species"?

This sort of dishonest crap-stirring is why I put you on ignore, and back on ignore you go.

Dave-W said:

How do you "know" humans are not a separate act of creation?
Can you prove that with repeatability in a lab?

Click to expand...

See, this is why I asked about volcanoes.

While many engineers are well versed in science, others are not.

Dave-W said:

IF you cannot repeat it, then you do not "know" it.

Click to expand...

Again, why I asked about volcanoes.

You believe it based on FAITH.

Click to expand...

According to your understanding of 'repeatability' in science, we should ignore claims regarding the eruption of Krakatau in 1833 since we cannot repeat it. Sure, there is all sorts of evidence that this happened, but nope - a creationist engineer claims we must be able to repeat specific events for them to be accepted.

Come to think of it, with this new 'events must be repeatable in order to be scientifically valid' notion, we cannot say a thing or draw any conclusions about ANY volcanic event because they are not 'repeatable.'

Heissonear said:

You wish. My academic experience shows differently.

Click to expand...

Your posts on this forum do not seem to indicate that you have ever had such an experience.

Dave-W said:

Micro-evolution; variants within a given species.

Click to expand...

So what prevents these variants from becoming species unto themselves?

We have never observed one species turn into another species.

Click to expand...

What do you think you should observe in such a case?

The birth/hatching of the 'new' species?

tas8831 said:

o what prevents these variants from becoming species unto themselves?

Click to expand...

When they can no longer produce fertile offspring is when they become a separate species.

inquiring mind said:

Insisting repeatedly that macro evolution is a fact, without evidence that is void of conjecture and speculation, doesn’t explain or make it so.

Click to expand...

Correct. So it is fortunate I am not doing that.
1. I don't insist that macro evolution is a fact. I insist that macro evolution provides the best explanation, by a country mile, for a vast range of observations of the biosphere, past and present.
2. Conjecture and speculation, when validated by repeated testing, evaluation and modification - as they are - cease to become conjecture and speculation and transform into sound, confirmed hypotheses and theory.

inquiring mind said:

My inability to see, and in particular to understand, ‘why’ you would reason the way you do in such a case, does not necessarily make me the ignorant one.

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, that is the way it turns out. I did not arrive at acceptance of macro evolution without several years of intensive study. Have you employed the same level of effort in rejecting it? Perhaps you are unable to see "why (I) would reason that way" because you have chosen not to expend the same level of effort. The lack of such effort and the consequent lack of knowledge you would have gained thereby would necessarily make you ignorant of the relevant data.

USincognito said:

What do you mean by "prehistoric people"? If you can clarify that I can explain human evolution to you.

I also want to know your educational background.

Click to expand...

Science has mis-classified the sons of God and called them "prehistoric people". Since they did NOT descend from Adam, but from Water Genesis 1:21 they were NOT Humans and did NOT have Adam's superior intelligence, which is like God's, according to Genesis 3:22. I have a PhD in creation, which is why no one can refute me, including yourself.

Go Braves said:

I asked you a simple, honest question & would appreciate a simple, honest answer.

Click to expand...

See the last post.

Sparagmos said:

Other theories. The Big Bang theory, for instance.

Click to expand...

False, since the Big Bang happened on the 3rd Day. Genesis 2:4 The first Day/Age began some 9 Billion years BEFORE the BB.

Sparagmos said:

They are not avoiding explaining abiogenesis in the least, unlike many religious people who are embarrassed to admit they don’t actually know it all.

Click to expand...

Abiogenesis, or magical chemical generation, is false. My view agrees with Science and History, so I know what happened in the beginning.

Sparagmos said:

Have you ever taken a college course on the matter, or read a book explaining evolution? What is your level of education and what is your area of study?

Click to expand...

Today's backward Science is ignorant of our true beginnings. I have a PhD in creation since I can understand Genesis.

Ophiolite said:

I did not arrive at acceptance of macro evolution without several years of intensive study.

Click to expand...

Good. You should be able to tell us where "evolved beings" came from apart from "common ancestors" which were made by Lord God at the beginning of the present 6th Day/Age, in the creation of the perfect 3rd Heaven.