More News on the Changing Evolution Scene :-) !!! :-)

[Bear Wild]

I like bananas, too. One thing in favor of gorillas -- as I understand it, they are not big meat eaters. So they don't raise cattle which is apparently adding to ruin the earth. (Oh, well. The Bible says God will ruin those who ruin the earth -- that's in Revelation, but of course, you probably know that scripture,)

Well you god better step in quickly or is your god waiting to see us fail before sending us a clear message?

I do not like bananas but gorillas are my relatives no matter what. And by the way I do not think that bananas are an important part of their diet.

 

[YoursTrue]

You screwed up again. The sort of so called "proof" that you are demanding does not exist in any of the sciences. What we have is evidence.

Can you please not keep repeating such a basic error?

The evidence you speak of is not evidence of species evolving. It is evidence that there are similar dna structures in some types of organisms. The evidence doesn't prove evolution anyway. Even if it can't be proven, it can't be proven. You can say the evidence shows to some that mankind evolved from some as of yet Unknown Common Ancestor. But, as you say, it cannot be proven that any organism evolved. And the evidence does not corroborate the theory of evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence you speak of is not evidence of species evolving. It is evidence that there are similar dna structures in some types of organisms. The evidence doesn't prove evolution anyway. Even if it can't be proven, it can't be proven. You can say the evidence shows to some that mankind evolved from some as of yet Unknown Common Ancestor. But, as you say, it cannot be proven that any organism evolved. And the evidence does not corroborate the theory of evolution.

Wrong. It is evidence of species evolving. It is what the theory of evolution predicts. It is what is observed. Therefore it is evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

How is this so hard to understand for you? I think that we need to have a discussion on the topic of evidence. Okay?

By the way, you fail every time you say "proven".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I do not "know that is [lack of proof] wrong" What I do know is that fossils have been found. (I also know that Lucy's feet, important to characterizing her) were not found. I'm beginning to love Lucy. Now, as the saying slightly goes -- show me the proof, ok you say your science has no proof, so show the evidence leading to conclusion. Not proof, of course, because there is none. (Why is that, by the way?) Thank you.

You are incorrect:

These bones were made for walking
A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis
The feet of Australopithecus afarensis

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are incorrect:

These bones were made for walking
A nearly complete foot from Dikika, Ethiopia and its implications for the ontogeny and function of Australopithecus afarensis
The feet of Australopithecus afarensis

Thanks for the links, and I would have supplied some like that if she had but asked. I pointed out several times that Lucy was not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found and that others had feet but she never responded to that claim. I asked her if someone could make a fairly accurate sculpture of her if they did not see her feet. She had not answer. She is on a script.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes,

So you agree your argument rests on a logical fallacy?
Why are you still making the argument then?

life around us is beyond the analysis of the theory of evolution. (Because there really is no proof beyond conjecture due to the various forms.)

False.

But that's me now as I see it now. As I said, I virtually believed (didn't really care) what they taught me in school about evolution, and was an honor student w/scholarship awards.

Sorry, but I don't believe you knew the first thing about evolution. You certainly display a complete lack of understanding of it now.

I understood what they were saying to a degree, and I believed it. It wasn't until later that I cast aside that theory.

You agree with something you didn't understand then. How does that even work?

But! that's me. I believe there is a directional force with intelligence above nature. No one really saw evolution taking place, in the thousands of years of mankind's written history, no accounts of animals morphing into other forms. I've heard the arguments (not enough time, etc.). But there is no fossil proof that animals morphed into other forms. No photographs. Nothing. Take it as you will.

Here's a good example of your misunderstanding of evolution right here ... animals don't "morph into other forms" in evolution. Strange how you don't know that at this point in this incredibly lengthy discussion.

Evolution is a fact of life. It is the backbone of biology. It happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation that describes how it happens.


Of course, none of this addresses my claim that your arguments are fallacious, which you did seem to acknowledge. So that leads me to the question, why continue to knowingly make fallacious arguments?

 

[SkepticThinker]

How?



What I see is that there is DNA that is similar according to various types, such as 99% etc of similar DNA from one type of ape to human DNA. But again -- this does not mean evolution. What it means is that gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees have a large percentage of DNA that humans have. So? There again is a big difference between them. But! that's how I now think. In order to approach this topic honestly, let's also be honest--must I agree with the Theory? I think maybe it's time to define the Theory, possibly once again.

What it demonstrates is common ancestry.
Just as you share genetic patterns with your ancestors, which demonstrates that they are related to you, all animals on earth share genetic patterns displaying varying degrees of relatedness.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for the links, and I would have supplied some like that if she had but asked. I pointed out several times that Lucy was not the only Australopithecus afarensis ever found and that others had feet but she never responded to that claim. I asked her if someone could make a fairly accurate sculpture of her if they did not see her feet. She had not answer. She is on a script.

No problem, just thought I'd help supplement some of your excellent explanations.

But yeah, she's on a script so I don't think it will help all that much.

 

[Astrophile]

@Astrophile, the link above to the Smithsonian's Human Origins page gives good timelines and discusses the relationships of earlier hominins to homo sapiens.

Thank-you. That is very useful.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wrong. It is evidence of species evolving. It is what the theory of evolution predicts. It is what is observed. Therefore it is evidence that supports the theory of evolution.

How is this so hard to understand for you? I think that we need to have a discussion on the topic of evidence. Okay?

By the way, you fail every time you say "proven".

It is not I that have failed. The theory is unproven in any quantity. That is substantially and evidence backing up the theory scientically. The evidence does not fit the theory at all except maybe like Star Trek type thing. And who might say that's not right either.

 

[YoursTrue]

No problem, just thought I'd help supplement some of your excellent explanations.

But yeah, she's on a script so I don't think it will help all that much.

From my inquiries here and I thank you for your answers, no matter how a person tries to verify the theory of Darwinian type of evolution, there is no real, upfront substantiating backing of the theory. While interesting and helpful in research, chromosomes and fossils, etc, do not backup, prove, or evidence the theory. Sorry the word prove doesn't meet the criteria of scientically approved definitions, but ok the evidence doesn't prove the theory in any case. It can't anyway, as far as the theory and definitions go. Beyond more theory and conjecture as to "how it--probably, maybe, might have--happened."

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not I that have failed. The theory is unproven in any quantity. That is substantially and evidence backing up the theory scientically. The evidence does not fit the theory at all except maybe like Star Trek type thing. And who might say that's not right either.

Please, if your God is real you are already in enough trouble. You were given an honesty test and you failed.

The evidence fits the theory perfectly. You could not find a single flaw. There is no reliable evidence for your beliefs and you are now calling your God a liar.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From my inquiries here and I thank you for your answers, no matter how a person tries to verify the theory of Darwinian type of evolution, there is no real, upfront substantiating backing of the theory. While interesting and helpful in research, chromosomes and fossils, etc, do not backup, prove, or evidence the theory. Sorry the word prove doesn't meet the criteria of scientically approved definitions, but ok the evidence doesn't prove the theory in any case. It can't anyway, as far as the theory and definitions go. Beyond more theory and conjecture as to "how it--probably, maybe, might have--happened."

Again, why repeat falsehoods.

At best you could claim not to understand how the evidence endlessly supports the theory. I often ask creationists if they can be honest. They tend to take personal offense at that, though they really should not. The reason that they take offense is because they know that they cannot be honest.

Tell me, whether the theory is true or not would your God want you to lie for him?

 

[YoursTrue]

Please, if your God is real you are already in enough trouble. You were given an honesty test and you failed.

The evidence fits the theory perfectly. You could not find a single flaw. There is no reliable evidence for your beliefs and you are now calling your God a liar.

There are major, and I mean major flaws in your theories. Unfortunately you want to make up stories as to how it all might have happened. No use splaining anymore. But...anyway... That's how it goes.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

New species from humans?

Consider this picture:

Ask yourself, how come we are able to tell which geographic region someone's ancestors come from, just by look at someone's face? And even more so when looking at someone's DNA.

Why is this so?

EVEN if you believe in the adam and eve story... then still this would require an explanation.
The answer is simple: genetic isolation.

At some point, groups of humans migrated away from the "mother" population. They settled in various parts of the world. For thousands of years, they wouldn't intermix - or at least very very little.

So we had these "islands" of groups of people which were all pretty much genetically isolated. With perhaps minor genetic exchange with directly neighbouring islands.

This is what evolution does.
Humans in the original "mother" population(*) surely are were pretty much the same "race". Once groups migrated away and genetically isolated themselves from the rest, they diverted away. Evolving into caucasian and asians.

Now, with globalization and vastly increased international travel, all these genes are quickly thrown into a big jar again. But had that period of genetic isolation continued, then speciation of all these groups into subspecies of homo sapiens would eventually become inevitable. That, or a dead end (=extinction of the group).



(*) fun fact concerning this mother population and a specific piece of evidence to support this idea. If you have a single mother population, then that population holds all the genetic variation. If a group splits of and migrates away while the majority stay put, then for the lineage of that migrated group, this represents a genetic bottleneck. As most of the variation stays behind and only a subsection moves away.

Now, take the most "pure" caucasian and most "pure" asian you can possibly find. With "pure" I mean someone who's ancestors for generations have been locals. Take a DNA sample from both and compare it. There will be LESS genetic variation between these two samples, then there will be between two random unrelated africans who live in the same city in africa.

Ain't that funny?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

According to what I understand, apes remain apes. Gorillas still remain gorillas. (Fish remain fish.) The rest is conjecture

There is no rest. That is true.
Eukaryotes remain eukaryotes.
Vertebrates remain vertebrates.
Tetrapods remain tetrapods.
Mammals remain mammals.
Primates remain primates.
Homo sapiens remain homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens are still primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates and eukaryotes.
And if homo sapiens splits and speciates further, those species will be subspecies of homo sapiens. So they too would still be homo sapiens.

Humans will not be evolving into non-humans of any kind.

regarding evolution as in discovering fossil remains. No proof of evolving from disosaurs to birds.

Birds ARE dinosaurs.
Just like humans are mammals.

It is impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" which encompasses all dinosaurs yet excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "...but not birds".

List the anatomical properties of a dinosaur.
Go over the list with a bunch of birds.
You'll have to check each box.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's up to you. There is no true real evidence proving evolution of the Darwinian kind. None. Including fossils. They do not prove evolution as described and imagined by Darwin. I have seen no "high level" of scientific knowledge from those who are on here for the most part.

I think the fact that you are complaining about not seeing any "high level" scientific knowledge on a forum called "religiousforums", speaks volumes concerning your ignorance on these matters.

Did you expect to receive high level university grade courses here or something?

There's a bazillion of libraries out there. There's also plenty of schools you can go to.

Not saying they don't have degrees in science, but saying that -- there is no real proof of evolution of the Darwinian concept.

How would you know?
First, you clearly haven't looked for it.
Secondly, you wouldn't be able to explain in simple terms what the "darwinian concept" is all about if your life dependend on it.

You don't even know what the evidence, should it exist, would have to look like for it to support the "darwinian concept".

Perhaps you should start by reading up on those things before complaining.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are major, and I mean major flaws in your theories. Unfortunately you want to make up stories as to how it all might have happened. No use splaining anymore. But...anyway... That's how it goes.

You keep claiming that there are flaws but you cannot name one of them.

This is why you appear to be very dishonest. It is why I ask you if it is okay to lie for Jesus.

I value the truth. That sadly does not appear to be the case for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is not I that have failed. The theory is unproven in any quantity. That is substantially and evidence backing up the theory scientically. The evidence does not fit the theory at all except maybe like Star Trek type thing. And who might say that's not right either.

If you really believe that is the case (and I really don't know how it could be), then can you explain why the vast majority of most experts in most fields of science accept the theory of evolution as the most well-evidenced scientific theory in existence and have for the last century, at least? Is there something you know that these experts in their fields of study don't know?
Why is it that every time a new discovery is made (like DNA, for instance) it always seems to fit the theory and never manages to falsify it, despite the fact that there are people like you attempting to falsify it every day?

And why is it that you (seemingly) accept common ancestry among your family members, which is based on genetic analysis, but reject the very same science when it demonstrates all life on earth is related? How do you reconcile these two contradictory thoughts?

And finally, how can you say the evidence (which you claim doesn't even exist ... not sure how that makes sense) "doesn't fit the theory at all" when you clearly don't even understand the theory of evolution to begin with, given that you seem to believe that animals "morph" into other animals. So I guess this is really just the same question as the first ... what makes you an expert on any of this, given that you've shown you don't understand evolution or the theory or evolution? And so much of an expert that you know so much more than the actual experts in their fields, despite the fact that you've done zero work in any scientific field and don't seem to understand evolution at all.

 

[SkepticThinker]

From my inquiries here and I thank you for your answers, ...

You're very welcome. I will expect that from now on you will not be claiming that "Lucy's" feet (Australopithecus afarensis) have never been found or examined.

... no matter how a person tries to verify the theory of Darwinian type of evolution, there is no real, upfront substantiating backing of the theory. While interesting and helpful in research, chromosomes and fossils, etc, do not backup, prove, or evidence the theory. Sorry the word prove doesn't meet the criteria of scientically approved definitions, but ok the evidence doesn't prove the theory in any case. It can't anyway, as far as the theory and definitions go. Beyond more theory and conjecture as to "how it--probably, maybe, might have--happened."

What do you mean by "it can't anyway?"

What do you consider evidence? If the fossil record, biogeography, comparative anatomy, comparative embryology, genetics, molecular biology, etc. aren't considered evidence to you, then what exactly, is evidence, in your mind?

And can you explain in your own words what you think evolution and the theory of evolution are please?