Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Bear Wild]

Observable fact? As evidence of evolution? ?? In other words, huh?

Still waiting for your real evidence. Please give us your best or do not make false claims about evolution.

 

[tas8831]

Ok here's a question. Doesn't it seem unusual that man cannot really figure out how the human form came about except by imagining it? I mean look at the governments. People must think they are the brightest, most brilliant forms of life on the face of this earth. Does the earth have a face by the way? Face it. Mankind left to his own devices is a failure. Take for instance the national debt. Part of evolution, one can say. Then talk about insanity, cruelty and more. Then talk about how bright men are, ok?

An even better question - do you know what a strawman fallacy is?

 

[tas8831]

I've discussed and examined this in full. There is no EVIDENCE of evolution. There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of -- evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

Is dust evidence of creation?

I know you have seen this - I have re-posted it many times (yet I have yet to get a sensible, scientifically-valid response from creationists.... weird, huh?):

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:

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]. "




No presuppositions there - just tests of a method followed by applications of the method.​

 

[tas8831]

nothing at all proves evolution. You can say yes it does, I can say no it doesn't, and it's your word against mine. And your opinion going with someone else's opinion.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
-I. Asimov

☛ Newsweek: “A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov, January 21, 1980, p. 19.

 

[tas8831]

LOL, opinions are one thing. Evidence and reality and guesswork are other things. Calculated guesswork as well. It's all guesses.

Then what is your evidence and reality for your preferred explanation?

 

[tas8831]

lol. still can't figure that common denominator...lol.

de·nom·i·na·tor
/dəˈnäməˌnādər/
noun
MATHEMATICS

1. the number below the line in a common fraction; a divisor.
   • a figure representing the total population in terms of which statistical values are expressed.

You are not even in right zip code.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course. Don't present anything but your opinion of someone else's opinion. Sounds good.

It's not about opinions. That's one of the things you aren't grasping.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I've discussed and examined this in full. There is no EVIDENCE of evolution. There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of -- evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

Do you think DNA can show that you are more closely related to your mother than say, your third cousin?
Or do you think that's bunk too?

 

[SkepticThinker]

lol, right. As in whatever...

Instead of laughing at it, you should read it.

That's if you are seriously curious about how evolution works.
I would say it appears that you are not.
Prove me wrong.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you think DNA can show that you are more closely related to your mother than say, your third cousin?
Or do you think that's bunk too?

Here's what I don't think is impossible, since we are descendants of males AND females together. Each male is an offspring of males and females. Same with females. Offspring of males and female. Lots and lots of genetic material from many, many predecessors. Therefore, I don't think it is impossible for genes to be arranged in a way to produce a child without having sexual intercourse. Now do I think it is a "natural" way of getting pregnant? Certainly not. But I say this with a smile -- not impossible.

 

[YoursTrue]

Instead of laughing at it, you should read it.

That's if you are seriously curious about how evolution works.
I would say it appears that you are not.
Prove me wrong.

Since there are no real facts other than conjecture about figuring 'how it happened,' I'd like to see anything that can be verified? I know what the theory is. Please present one verifiable piece of evidence of the branches starting and developing (just one, not a whole lot, I don't want to tax you). I realize that many, many think and believe the theory of evolution is true, however, if you could provide one verifiable piece of evidence ascertaining the theory of evolution, preferably from the start of the development of life on this planet, it would be helpful.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've discussed and examined this in full. There is no EVIDENCE of evolution. There are bones, there are artifacts, there is DNA. Etc. But there is no evidence of -- evolution as if the soupy mass caused-made-evolved other things and moreso, such as some unknown common ancestor of humans and chimps, etc and etc. None whatsoever. DNA, and bones are not evidence of evolution. They are evidence of DNA and bones.

I see that you still do not understand the concept of evidence. Let's take a break and discuss that quickly. Scientific evidence is a fairly easy concept to undrestand:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretable in accordance with scientific method.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

If you do not like Wikipedia I can find other sources that give the same definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since there are no real facts other than conjecture about figuring 'how it happened,' I'd like to see anything that can be verified? I know what the theory is. Please present one verifiable piece of evidence of the branches starting and developing (just one, not a whole lot, I don't want to tax you). I realize that many, many think and believe the theory of evolution is true, however, if you could provide one verifiable piece of evidence ascertaining the theory of evolution, preferably from the start of the development of life on this planet, it would be helpful.

I don't think that you know what "facts" are either. Let's work on your inability to understand the concept of evidence first. By the way, there is no need to start from the beginning. That is a false demand. To tell if someone murdered someone or else we do not need to be there at the suspects birth.

 

[YoursTrue]

An even better question - do you know what a strawman fallacy is?

I'll go over it again, because I was thinking about it. Let's start at the beginning, a very good place to start. Let's start with the emergence of man. OK, I don't believe in evolution, but let's use it for this discussion. Do you think or believe slavery went beyond the Israelites? Do you think it started with them? No strawman, please just answer yes or no.

 

[Astrophile]

I'll go over it again, because I was thinking about it. Let's start at the beginning, a very good place to start. Let's start with the emergence of man. OK, I don't believe in evolution, but let's use it for this discussion. Do you think or believe slavery went beyond the Israelites? Do you think it started with them? No strawman, please just answer yes or no.

I don't understand what these questions have to do with evolution, but I am willing to answer them none the less.

Do you think or believe slavery went beyond the Israelites?

This is an odd way of phrasing the question, but I assume that you mean, 'Do you think or believe that other nations besides the Israelites kept slaves?' The answer is 'yes'. 'According to History of slavery - Wikipedia , 'Slavery operated in the earliest civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia, which dates back as far as 3500 BC)'.

Do you think it started with them?

No. As mentioned above, slavery in Sumer 'dates back as far as 3500 BC'. In addition, 'The code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC) prescribed death for anyone who helped a slave escape or who sheltered a fugitive' - Slavery - Wikipedia , and 'Slavery in Egypt existed at least since the New Kingdom (1550-1175 BC)' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient-Egypt .

 

[Tiberius]

I'll go over it again, because I was thinking about it. Let's start at the beginning, a very good place to start. Let's start with the emergence of man. OK, I don't believe in evolution, but let's use it for this discussion. Do you think or believe slavery went beyond the Israelites? Do you think it started with them? No strawman, please just answer yes or no.

Like Astrophile, I don't see how this has any relevance to biological evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't understand what these questions have to do with evolution, but I am willing to answer them none the less.



This is an odd way of phrasing the question, but I assume that you mean, 'Do you think or believe that other nations besides the Israelites kept slaves?' The answer is 'yes'. 'According to History of slavery - Wikipedia ,
'Slavery operated in the earliest civilizations (such as Sumer in Mesopotamia, which dates back as far as 3500 BC)'.



No. As mentioned above, slavery in Sumer 'dates back as far as 3500 BC'. In addition, 'The code of Hammrabi (c. 1760 BC) prescribed death for anyone who helped a slave escape or who sheltered a fugitive' - Slavery - Wikipedia , and 'Slavery in Egypt existed at least since the New Kingdom (1550-1175 BC)' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient-Egypt .

hmmm, interesting. So, according to wikipedia article you quoted, slavery operated in the earliest civilizations such as Sumer, dating back to 3500 BC. Accordingly, just taking it point by point, my first question to you is: do you believe the dating of the earliest civilizations having slavery such as that in Mesopotamia goes back to 3500 BC? That's my first question. I mean that's what they say about the earliest civilizations that existed. 3500 BC. Thanks for answering, Astrophile. This is a pretty weighty question, and so I'd like to go over this. thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hmmm, interesting. So, according to wikipedia article you quoted, slavery operated in the earliest civilizations such as Sumer, dating back to 3500 BC. Accordingly, just taking it point by point, my first question to you is: do you believe the dating of the earliest civilizations having slavery such as that in Mesopotamia goes back to 3500 BC? That's my first question. I mean that's what they say about the earliest civilizations that existed. 3500 BC. Thanks for answering, Astrophile. This is a pretty weighty question, and so I'd like to go over this. thanks.

There are various dating methods used to arrive at that date. The question is why would you oppose them? How would you show them to be wrong?

 

[tas8831]

I'll go over it again, because I was thinking about it. Let's start at the beginning, a very good place to start. Let's start with the emergence of man. OK, I don't believe in evolution, but let's use it for this discussion. Do you think or believe slavery went beyond the Israelites? Do you think it started with them? No strawman, please just answer yes or no.

Wow...

I don't even understand what the point of this is.

The bible is totally OK with slavery - I took part in a rather lengthy discussion on this on one of the other subforums on here and the bible experts ran off or hurled insults or ignored facts or tried to find justification for biblical slavery, most of them relied on selective memories and cherry picking.

What is your point, other than perhaps admitting unwittingly to not knowing what a strawman is?

Oh - almost forgot. I'm sure this was just a mere oversight on your part, but you seem to have skipped right over my response to you here:

Evidence For And Against Evolution

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's what I don't think is impossible, since we are descendants of males AND females together. Each male is an offspring of males and females. Same with females. Offspring of males and female. Lots and lots of genetic material from many, many predecessors. Therefore, I don't think it is impossible for genes to be arranged in a way to produce a child without having sexual intercourse. Now do I think it is a "natural" way of getting pregnant? Certainly not. But I say this with a smile -- not impossible.

This doesn't come anywhere near addressing and answering the question.

Could you please read it over again and try to answer it. I think it illustrates a good point.