The Best Evidence for Evolution (Challenge to all Creationists)

[DavidFirth]

Didn't you read Skwim's post? Science doesn't prove things. The germ theory, heliocentrism and a spherical Earth haven't been proved, either. If all you accept is proof you'll believe in nothing.

If you don't accept that small changes can accumulate into large changes, how do you explain human origins?
If you're proposing magic poofing you'd better have some positive evidence (I'm not even asking for proof).
Criticism of the ToE, by the way, does not count as evidence of poofing.

Science does prove things. We can prove a man raped a woman by comparing his DNA to the DNA of the sperm found in her body. That's proof if the DNA matches. You've got zero DNA matches. You've got no proof.

 

[Valjean]

You have the DNA, and DNA don't lie. Show me exactly how it happened. Show me why. Show me and stop speculating and I will listen to you.

Yes, we have some DNA, but you clearly haven't looked at the genomic record, or you wouldn't be insisting there was no descent.

But you can't show me. So I stand by the word of God that He created Man in his image. He didn't create an ape-like creature that later turned into a man, He created an actual man.

I'm still waiting for some evidence of this God, and some and verification of His 'Word'. You're making an extraordinary claim, but you're providing nothing to support it.
You keep asking us "evolutionists" for proof, but you provide no support for your much more bizarre claim of magic, nor does your creationism posit any mechanism, it's just a declaration of agency.

 

[Valjean]

Science does prove things. We can prove a man raped a woman by comparing his DNA to the DNA of the sperm found in her body. That's proof if the DNA matches. You've got zero DNA matches. You've got no proof.

That's legal proof, not scientific, though it is strong scientific evidence, just as the sequential DNA changes in organisms over time is evidence of descent with modification.

Please define "DNA match." We could address your question better if we understood exactly what you're getting at.

 

[Skwim]

Your opinion isn't at least slightly biased, is it?

Actually, it isn't. I've read a bit of ICR's tripe, and I think the following pretty well sums up the organization.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist faux-research organization that produces voluminous quote mines and logical fallacies in pursuit of debunking evolution and an old earth, and the ICR is the unholy spawn of San Diego Christian College. They are essentially a bunch of cranks who want to undermine science education and eventually turn the United States into a young-Earth creationist, dominionist society. The Institute was founded by Henry Morris in 1972 and has since gone on to become one of the centers of the anti-evolution movement and quite possibly the general anti-science movement in the US.

Courses

Beginning in the early 1980s, the institute has offered courses in biology, astrophysics, geophysics, geology, and general science through its online graduate school. The ICR closed its online school after the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board declined to accredit ICR's online graduate school for science or science education. The ICR then began offering online Biblical apologetics courses.

Accreditation

The ICR School of Bible Apologetics and their former science education graduate school was accredited by TRACS for a while before moving to Texas. The ICR requested accreditation termination due to the fact TRACS [Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. A national institutional accrediting agency for Christian post secondary institutions, colleges, universities, and seminaries.] was not recognized in the state of Texas. Later the ICR tried gaining accreditation in Texas but the Board of Education turned them down; the ICR sued them for religious discrimination but they got laughed out of court.
source

.​

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually, it isn't. I've read a bit of ICR's tripe, and I think the following pretty well sums up the organization.

The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is a young-Earth creationist faux-research organization that produces voluminous quote mines and logical fallacies in pursuit of debunking evolution and an old earth, and the ICR is the unholy spawn of San Diego Christian College. They are essentially a bunch of cranks who want to undermine science education and eventually turn the United States into a young-Earth creationist, dominionist society. The Institute was founded by Henry Morris in 1972 and has since gone on to become one of the centers of the anti-evolution movement and quite possibly the general anti-science movement in the US.

Courses

Beginning in the early 1980s, the institute has offered courses in biology, astrophysics, geophysics, geology, and general science through its online graduate school. The ICR closed its online school after the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board declined to accredit ICR's online graduate school for science or science education. The ICR then began offering online Biblical apologetics courses.

Accreditation

The ICR School of Bible Apologetics and their former science education graduate school was accredited by TRACS for a while before moving to Texas. The ICR requested accreditation termination due to the fact TRACS [Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools. A national institutional accrediting agency for Christian post secondary institutions, colleges, universities, and seminaries.] was not recognized in the state of Texas. Later the ICR tried gaining accreditation in Texas but the Board of Education turned them down; the ICR sued them for religious discrimination but they got laughed out of court.
source

.​

Maybe so. But you're still biased against them and everyone else who believes in the Bible. You let your bias guide you rather than the truth.

 

[sayak83]

You would have to show me exactly how it happened, explaining all of the changes in the DNA with exactly how they happened and why they happened. I would need to know exactly what changed, when it changed, why it changed and how it changed.

I would need to see the DNA changing. If it happens over millions of years then it happens slowly enough to observe the DNA change begin to happen and during the process of it actually happening.

Similarity of DNA isn't proof of macroevolution. Chimps' DNA is 97% similar to ours and they are nothing like us. That isn't proof that we came from the same creature, just the fact that the DNA is similar.

OK. Consider the post I wrote below. I will await your reaction.

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

Evidence of Evolution that was presented but never addressed

 

[Skwim]

Maybe so. But you're still biased against them and everyone else who believes in the Bible. You let your bias guide you rather than the truth.

bi·as
ˈbīəs/
noun: bias; plural noun: biases
1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
​

So, just what unfairness do you see in my regard of Bible believers?

.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Cats, dogs, humans, monkeys. Those are different kinds. It's something that doesn't take a Ph.D to figure out.

I don't care what you've pointed out. I do care about what's been proven. Macroevolution, as taught in US public schools has not been proven. It's speculation based on assumption. That's all it is.

That's not a definition. Those are just examples. I daresay a person holding a Ph.D would be able to give a definition, when asked for it.

 

[Skwim]

That's not a definition. Those are just examples. I daresay a person holding a Ph.D would be able to give a definition, when asked for it.

Yeah, providing examples in place of a requested definition is pretty common among those lacking a grasp on what they're talking about. Either that or no attempt is made at all. But I've pretty much come to expect it and usually just go along with whatever they're capable of doing.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

That's not a definition. Those are just examples. I daresay a person holding a Ph.D would be able to give a definition, when asked for it.

I have no Ph.D. Children understand like kinds of animals and plants. Why don't you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have no Ph.D. Children understand like kinds of animals and plants. Why don't you?

Hmm, maybe you should get one. You'd probably understand science a lot better than you currently do.

Why can't you give a definition then, if this is all so simple that a child could understand it? How is anyone supposed to be able to determine if say a dog and a cat are the same "kind?" How about a dolphin and a whale? How about a shark and bass?

We need something to actually work with here.

Geez it's a good thing scientists don't operate this way.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, providing examples in place of a requested definition is pretty common among those lacking a grasp on what they're talking about. Either that or no attempt is made at all. But I've pretty much come to expect it and usually just go along with whatever they're capable of doing.

.

I have yet to see a definition of "kind" from anyone on this forum. If it's all so simple, it should be easy to come up with one. And yet here we still are ....

I mean, I guess we have to take whatever is given and try to work with it, but it's a lot more difficult this way.

 

[DavidFirth]

Hmm, maybe you should get one. You'd probably understand science a lot better than you currently do.

Why can't you give a definition then, if this is all so simple that a child could understand it? How is anyone supposed to be able to determine if say a dog and a cat are the same "kind?" How about a dolphin and a whale? How about a shark and bass?

We need something to actually work with here. Geez it's a good thing scientists don't operate this way.

Maybe you'd better stick with the Ph.D's because you don't seem to have the mental capacity to handle the easy stuff.

 

[sayak83]

I have no Ph.D. Children understand like kinds of animals and plants. Why don't you?

Where I live, kind and species are the same. Cows and buffaloes are considered different kinds for example.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Maybe you'd better stick with the Ph.D's because you don't seem to have the mental capacity to handle the easy stuff.

Is that your serious answer?

So that's a no, then? I thought this was really, really simple.

 

[Socratic Berean]

I did, it is good evidence of the evolution of feathers.

Variation in feathers, yes, but transition between scales and feathers (the topic at hand)? Please post the graphic depicting the half-scale half-feather transitionary form.

 

[Skwim]

I have no Ph.D. Children understand like kinds of animals and plants. Why don't you?

Then why don't you take an honest stab at my request?

​

What is the definition of a "kind"?
​

The word you used in describing microevolution: "No one is arguing against microevolution, i.e. evolution among like kinds" ?

"Kind" being the term Bible literalists use to describe the forms of animals taken aboard the ark so as to avoid explaining how Noah could have gotten all ~7.77 million species of animals + their mates aboard. To say nothing of all the plants, fungi, protozoans, and others that would have needed to be saved.

.

.

 

[DavidFirth]

You really don't know?

Different breeds of dogs are like kinds.
Tabby's and Calico cats are like kinds.
Humans and apes are NOT like kinds.

The word "kinds" is used in the Bible to help define which animals got on the ark. Every breed of dog was not needed, only two dogs.

 

[Altfish]

Variation in feathers, yes, but transition between scales and feathers (the topic at hand)? Please post the graphic depicting the half-scale half-feather transitionary form.

Don't tell me, "There are no transitional fossils"

 

[SkepticThinker]

You really don't know?

Different breeds of dogs are like kinds.
Tabby's and Calico cats are like kinds.
Humans and apes are NOT like kinds.

What makes dogs and cats different kinds? Why aren't humans and apes the same kind?

How is anyone supposed to know what you'e talking about if you don't provide a proper definition? How would you feel if science operated in such a way?

The word "kinds" is used in the Bible to help define which animals got on the ark. Every breed of dog was not needed, only two dogs.

That tells us practically nothing.