Of birds and men. Covergent evolution.

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me the strongest line of evidence for evolution (common ancestry) is the fact that we have shared broken genes in the same loci than chimps.

Why would a creator create the same broken genes in the same spot?


Sure you can adopt a position of extreme skepticism a d find an excuse "maybe the gene is not broken, maybe it has a function that both chimps and human need but we haven't discovered such function"

The problem is that by adopting a position of extreme an irrational skepticism one can also reject the arguments in favor of God, like the kalam cosmological argument or the fine tuning argument

I was completely with you, until your last sentence.

Rejecting fallacious arguments, does not require "extreme skepticism". It only requires knowledge of logical fallacies.

 

[leroy]

I was completely with you, until your last sentence.

Obviously you where with me in things that you like and you disagreed with me in things that have theological implications that you dislike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Obviously you where with me in things that you like and you disagreed with me in things that have theological implications that you dislike.

No.
I was with you where you were saying reasonable things.
And I wasn't with you where you were saying unreasonable things.

My likes and dislikes had nothing to do with it.
Other then perhaps the fact that I don't like unreasonable things.... So yea, okay, maybe.

(for the record: this peeing contest isn't going to go anywhere)

 

[leroy]

No.
I was with you where you were saying reasonable things.
And I wasn't with you where you were saying unreasonable things.

My likes and dislikes had nothing to do with it.
Other then perhaps the fact that I don't like unreasonable things.... So yea, okay, maybe.

(for the record: this peeing contest isn't going to go anywhere)

All I am saying is that if you simply take the evidence as it is, it's obvious that we share a common ancestor with chimps, that the universe had a begining, that the universe is FT, that Jesus tomb was found empty, that life can only come from preexisting life, that there are other planets outside the solar system, that the universe is expanding etc

But if you adopt a position of extreme sceptisism you can deny any of those claims. After all "maybe" the universe is not expanding, maybe there is an unknown mechanism that caused red shift.

Maybe there is an unknown reason for why would god create broken genes

Maybe there is an unknown mechanism that causes life from a primordial soup

 

[Deeje]

To me the strongest line of evidence for evolution (common ancestry) is the fact that we have shared broken genes in the same loci than chimps.

Why would a creator create the same broken genes in the same spot?


Sure you can adopt a position of extreme skepticism a d find an excuse "maybe the gene is not broken, maybe it has a function that both chimps and human need but we haven't discovered such function"

The problem is that by adopting a position of extreme an irrational skepticism one can also reject the arguments in favor of God, like the kalam cosmological argument or the fine tuning argument

We who identify as “Christians” are faced with a choice....who do we imagine was responsible for the fact that we have to decide if God created all things as he said he did....or to accept dodgy, concocted “evidence” that an “assumed” process of evolution supposedly took place without any proof that it is even possible, let alone that it actually did? Let’s get real here.

Our faith is being tested and many are selling out to science in the mistaken belief that they have either eliminated all need for a Creator...or that, all he did was begin the process and step out of the picture. That is not the way he tells it. Who do we believe? What are the real facts?

I see two “belief” systems at odds here. Neither has absolute proof for their beliefs and only one claims to have faith in God. To try and fuse the two is a sell out IMO. We can’t have a foot in both camps, as if we need to hedge our bets.....we are actually gambling with our lives. Do we understand why our faith is being tested in this issue?...and who is testing it? The godless have no idea why they are even being used in this issue.

For Christians, this is a decision upon which our whole future depends.....we either believe God and uphold our faith in him as the Creator of all things, or we believe godless humans who mostly make up the front line in zealously defending their faith in science....often using derision and ridicule which challenges our pride. It’s a bluff. They have no real evidence....all they have is their assumptions. It sounds convincing but it is virtually baseless at its foundations.

I am on the frontline defending my faith in a Creator God and his word. No one has produced any real “proof” that macro-evolution....i.e. that a single celled organism that spontaneously popped into existence one day in the dim dark past, somehow had the programming and ability to transform itself into every living organism on earth....is that the way it happened?...no Creator necessary?....the existence of this unique planet, it’s habitats and all it’s myriad lifeforms was just a series of very fortunate coincidences? I can’t accept that. You can’t build anything solid on such a flimsy foundation.

Understanding that “adaptation” is not at all in question, as this is a pre-programmed (designed) mechanism in all living things proven to be true.....but the suggestion that adaptation can take place outside their testable limits is a wild, unsubstantiated assumption. If you don’t see that scientific ‘sleight of hand’, you will swallow the deception because it looks correct. Appearances can be deceptive.

You can believe science’s assumptions if you wish....but I see creation as a deliberate and carefully planned process over millions of years. I do not see the creative “days” as 24 hour periods, and Genesis does not argue with what science knows about the age of the earth....or its creatures. YEC proponents have not done Christianity any favors......flying in the face of what science “knows” as opposed to what science “believes”.

We have to choose who and what to believe...but informed choice is the only way to go. All I ask is for people to examine the real evidence and not be taken in by the assumptions and suggestions, offered as if they were proven facts.

 

[leroy]

We who identify as “Christians” are faced with a choice....who do we imagine was responsible for the fact that we have to decide if God created all things as he said he did....or to accept dodgy, concocted “evidence” that an “assumed” process of evolution supposedly took place without any proof that it is even possible, let alone that it actually did? Let’s get real here.

Our faith is being tested and many are selling out to science in the mistaken belief that they have either eliminated all need for a Creator...or that, all he did was begin the process and step out of the picture. That is not the way he tells it. Who do we believe? What are the real facts?

I see two “belief” systems at odds here. Neither has absolute proof for their beliefs and only one claims to have faith in God. To try and fuse the two is a sell out IMO. We can’t have a foot in both camps, as if we need to hedge our bets.....we are actually gambling with our lives. Do we understand why our faith is being tested in this issue?...and who is testing it? The godless have no idea why they are even being used in this issue.

ForChristians, this is a decision upon which our whole future depends.....we either believe God and uphold our faith in him as the Creator of all things, or we believe godless humans who mostly make up the front line in zealously defending their faith in science....often using derision and ridicule which challenges our pride. It’s a bluff. They have no real evidence....all they have is their assumptions. It sounds convincing but it is virtually baseless at its foundations.

I am on the frontline defending my faith in a Creator God and his word. No one has produced any real “proof” that macro-evolution....i.e. that a single celled organism that spontaneously popped into existence one day in the dim dark past, somehow had the programming and ability to transform itself into every living organism on earth....is that the way it happened?...no Creator necessary?....the existence of this unique planet, it’s habitats and all it’s myriad lifeforms was just a series of very fortunate coincidences? I can’t accept that. You can’t build anything solid on such a flimsy foundation.

Understanding that “adaptation” is not at all in question, as this is a pre-programmed (designed) mechanism in all living things proven to be true.....but the suggestion that adaptation can take place outside their testable limits is a wild, unsubstantiated assumption. If you don’t see that scientific ‘sleight of hand’, you will swallow the deception because it looks correct. Appearances can be deceptive.

You can believe science’s assumptions if you wish....but I see creation as a deliberate and carefully planned process over millions of years. I do not see the creative “days” as 24 hour periods, and Genesis does not argue with what science knows about the age of the earth....or its creatures. YEC proponents have not done Christianity any favors......flying in the face of what science “knows” as opposed to what science “believes”.

We have to choose who and what to believe...but informed choice is the only way to go. All I ask is for people to examine the real evidence and not be taken in by the assumptions and suggestions, offered as if they were proven facts.

Well obviously there is no absolute / conclusive proof for evolution (common ancestry) but there are good arguments in favor of such a claim.... Including the one that provided, what is wrong with that argument?

ForChristians, this is a decision upon which our whole future depends

I don't think God would care too much if we had the wrong interpretation of a particular biological fact.

No one has produced any real “proof” that macro-evolution....i.e. that a single celled organism that spontaneously popped into existence one day in the dim dark past, somehow had the programming and ability to transform itself into every living organism on earth

Granted, what our current knowledge of science and scientific laws tell us is that life doesn't pop from none life


That's my point, you can simply accept the best scientific evidence and accept both evolution (common ancestry) and the law o biogenesis (life can't come from none life)

Or you can assume a position of extreme skepticism and claim that "something unknown happened" and reject both evolution and the law of biogenesis

But you can't reject one and accept the other without being intellectually inconsistent

 

[Deeje]

Granted, what our current knowledge of science and scientific laws tell us is that life doesn't pop from none life

Science itself knows that "life comes from pre-existing life".....that is an inescapable fact of nature....its what they see demonstrated time after time in any of their experiments.
The only time it is denied is with reference to abiogenesis. All of a sudden, their provable fact becomes unprovable....but it doesn't alter their stance. They sit there with their fingers in their ears whistling Dixie..

They exchange what they see as our fairy story, for one of their own...even more unbelievable and fanciful than ours.

That's my point, you can simply accept the best scientific evidence and accept both evolution (common ancestry) and the law o biogenesis (life can't come from none life)

Or you can assume a position of extreme skepticism and claim that "something unknown happened" and reject both evolution and the law of biogenesis

But you can't reject one and accept the other without being intellectually inconsistent

I disagree. For a Christian this is a different ballgame.
What is the "best scientific evidence" based on when it comes to macro-evolution? When you examine the first premise...that all the rest of their theory is built on, you find nothing concrete.....its all matchsticks. There is no solid evidence to build on in the first place. They hide behind their reinvented word "theory".....as if it doesn't really mean what the dictionary says it means. They don't need to prove a "scientific theory", but that doesn't stop them from presenting it as established fact. The fact is...there are NO FACTS involved in their musings about what happened all those billions of years ago. Its all based on guesses...and a biased interpretation of their "evidence".

We who identify as Christians are told in the Bible that a super intelligent, evil agency is working hard behind the scenes to play on our propensity to "believe" whoever has the better argument and to follow what appears to be "solid evidence" to get us to abandon our faith. But its not until you really examine the facts that you realize that science has built a very impressive edifice on nothing but assumption and conjecture. For a Christian that is 'exchanging the truth for a lie, rendering homage to creation itself, rather than to the one who created it'. (Romans 1:25)

There is a lot at stake here.

 

[Bear Wild]

We who identify as Christians are told in the Bible that a super intelligent, evil agency is working hard behind the scenes to play on our propensity to "believe" whoever has the better argument and to follow what appears to be "solid evidence" to get us to abandon our faith. But its not until you really examine the facts that you realize that science has built a very impressive edifice on nothing but assumption and conjecture. For a Christian that is 'exchanging the truth for a lie, rendering homage to creation itself, rather than to the one who created it'. (Romans 1:25)

The problem with this argument is that if you believe god created the planet earth whether it is the Norse, Christian, or Hindu god/goddess then the creation must be the greatest testament to the creator and not a linguistically limited book. For me the universe itself is the creative act and for you it is your god. OK but the creation tells us the story not a bunch of guys wandering in a desert. You had me going in an earlier post that there was hope for you. Do not disappoint me know.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well obviously there is no absolute / conclusive proof for evolution (common ancestry) but there are good arguments in favor of such a claim.... Including the one that provided, what is wrong with that argument?



I don't think God would care too much if we had the wrong interpretation of a particular biological fact.




Granted, what our current knowledge of science and scientific laws tell us is that life doesn't pop from none life


That's my point, you can simply accept the best scientific evidence and accept both evolution (common ancestry) and the law o biogenesis (life can't come from none life)

Or you can assume a position of extreme skepticism and claim that "something unknown happened" and reject both evolution and the law of biogenesis

But you can't reject one and accept the other without being intellectually inconsistent

You are right there is no "proof" but there is undeniable evidence.

 

[Heyo]

Science itself knows that "life comes from pre-existing life".....that is an inescapable fact of nature....its what they see demonstrated time after time in any of their experiments.
The only time it is denied is with reference to abiogenesis. All of a sudden, their provable fact becomes unprovable....but it doesn't alter their stance. They sit there with their fingers in their ears whistling Dixie..

They exchange what they see as our fairy story, for one of their own...even more unbelievable and fanciful than ours.



I disagree. For a Christian this is a different ballgame.
What is the "best scientific evidence" based on when it comes to macro-evolution? When you examine the first premise...that all the rest of their theory is built on, you find nothing concrete.....its all matchsticks. There is no solid evidence to build on in the first place. They hide behind their reinvented word "theory".....as if it doesn't really mean what the dictionary says it means. They don't need to prove a "scientific theory", but that doesn't stop them from presenting it as established fact. The fact is...there are NO FACTS involved in their musings about what happened all those billions of years ago. Its all based on guesses...and a biased interpretation of their "evidence".

We who identify as Christians are told in the Bible that a super intelligent, evil agency is working hard behind the scenes to play on our propensity to "believe" whoever has the better argument and to follow what appears to be "solid evidence" to get us to abandon our faith. But its not until you really examine the facts that you realize that science has built a very impressive edifice on nothing but assumption and conjecture. For a Christian that is 'exchanging the truth for a lie, rendering homage to creation itself, rather than to the one who created it'. (Romans 1:25)

There is a lot at stake here.

I approve of your new style of proselytising. It makes clear that your argumentation is deeply rooted in your beliefs and is not touched by knowledge about the subject.

 

[Deeje]

I approve of your new style of proselytising. It makes clear that your argumentation is deeply rooted in your beliefs and is not touched by knowledge about the subject.

My deeply rooted beliefs are supported by science's lack of real evidence. I won't replace one "belief system" with another that has less substantiated evidence for our Creator than what the Bible presents.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You are right there is no "proof" but there is undeniable evidence.

“You are right there is no "proof" “

If that’s the case, then the interpretations reached from it are deniable.

 

[Heyo]

My deeply rooted beliefs are supported by science's lack of real evidence. I won't replace one "belief system" with another that has less substantiated evidence for our Creator than what the Bible presents.

When you say it that way, you are still wrong about science but it is clear to most where your misinformation comes from.

 

[Deeje]

When you say it that way, you are still wrong about science but it is clear to most where your misinformation comes from.

Well don't look now but its clear to me where your "misinformation" comes from......more from imagination than actual hard science. Its your baseline that has no foundation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

All I am saying is that if you simply take the evidence as it is, it's obvious that we share a common ancestor with chimps, that the universe had a begining, that the universe is FT, that Jesus tomb was found empty, that life can only come from preexisting life, that there are other planets outside the solar system, that the universe is expanding etc

that Jesus tomb was found empty, that life can only come from preexisting life

These 2, are not like the others in your list.
The others in your list can all be independently verified. These two can not.

The first because it is anecdotal and the second because it's essentially a negative claims. You formulated it in such a way that you didn't have to use the word "not", but it is implied by the word "only".
The underlying actual claim is that life cannot come about from non-life. And this is something that can never be demonstrated. You can't demonstrate such negative claims.

But if you adopt a position of extreme sceptisism you can deny any of those claims.

One doesn't need a position of "extreme sceptisism" to not blindly accept undemonstrable and anecdotal claims.

After all "maybe" the universe is not expanding, maybe there is an unknown mechanism that caused red shift.

Indeed, maybe those are the case. However, all independently verifiable evidence suggest it's not.

Maybe there is an unknown reason for why would god create broken genes

Indeed, maybe that is the case. However, all independently verifiable evidence suggest it's not.

Maybe there is an unknown mechanism that causes life from a primordial soup

Maybe there is. And all independently verifiable evidence suggests that there probably indeed is a mechanism that turns chemistry into biology.

There is no independently verifiable evidence that suggests or demonstrates that no such mechanism exists or can exist, because evidence doesn't work that way.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can believe science’s assumptions if you wish..

The facts of evolution are not assumptions. They are facts.
It's a genetic fact that species share ancestry. To deny this, requires the denial of us understanding how DNA works. That we aren't able to tell your siblings from random people using only DNA.

This is something that you really don't realise. Common ancestry of species is not the theory of evolution. It is a genetic fact of evolution. DNA tells us about kinship and ancestry, because it is past on from one generation to the next in mutated form. Mutations create genetic markers that can be traced. You can build family trees by mapping out which species have which markers. Just like you can make family trees depicting your cousins and uncles and grandparents and whatnot.

The sooner you understand this, the faster you'll be able to move on from this absurd denial of biology.

YEC proponents have not done Christianity any favors......flying in the face of what science “knows” as opposed to what science “believes”.

Science also knows evolution to be an accurate model.
The fact is that there are over 200k peer reviewed scientific papers on evolution, in support of the model.

We have to choose who and what to believe...but informed choice is the only way to go.

But you're only informing yourself on one side of the issue.
You categorically refuse to learn anything about evolution. Every time somebody corrects you on some misconception or strawman, you just repeat it and don't correct yourself.

The point above about common ancestry has been pointed out to you multiple times as well. I can't even count the amount of times I had to explain the law of monophy to you.

Yes, one should make informed decisions. But one must also first inform themselves to be able to do that.
So I suggest you stop rejecting being informed on evolutionary science, and correct your strawmen when people point them out.

All I ask is for people to examine the real evidence and not be taken in by the assumptions and suggestions, offered as if they were proven facts.

The real evidence supports evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well obviously there is no absolute / conclusive proof for evolution (common ancestry) but there are good arguments in favor of such a claim.... Including the one that provided, what is wrong with that argument?

Common ancestry of species is as factual as it can be.
We know how DNA is inherited by off spring in mutated form.
We know how this creates genetic sequences and markers that can be traced through lineages.
This allows us to map out kinship and ancestry between species. And we can do that for entire genomes or specific sequences or markers and cross reference them.

Genetically, it is a fact that species share ancestors.
That GULO gene is one of the many many many many genetic facts that allows such a conclusion.
That GULO gene, then there are the ERV's, the fused chromosome and the literally millions of other genetic markers.

Such evidence in a court room is enough to consider it proven that the accused is the father of the baby.

Granted, what our current knowledge of science and scientific laws tell us is that life doesn't pop from none life

No it doesn't.

That's my point, you can simply accept the best scientific evidence and accept both evolution (common ancestry) and the law o biogenesis (life can't come from none life)

Biogenesis is not a law. It's a process.
It's the arising of life from pre-existing life. The process does not in any way exclude the possibility of the existance of another process that makes life arise from non-life.

Abiogenesis would be that process by which life arises from non-life.
Several hypothesis exist, some more promising then others, but not conclusive as of yet.
But that's not relevant, let's even pretend that we have no clue whatsoever and not even a single wild idea.

The point is that nothing about our knowledge excludes the possibility of a process that generates life from non-life, like you keep claiming.

Or you can assume a position of extreme skepticism and claim that "something unknown happened" and reject both evolution and the law of biogenesis

Again - not a law.

But you can't reject one and accept the other without being intellectually inconsistent

I can actually. Because one is an intellectually consistent model with great explanatory power concerning a well defined aspect of reality (=evolution), and the other is not even a model. It's just a claim with no evidence - which even can't have evidence by definition since it's a negative claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

“You are right there is no "proof" “

If that’s the case, then the interpretations reached from it are deniable.

Well, you can deny anything of course... Flat earthers, evolution deniers and YECs certainly prove that everyday.

The question is though, if the denial is reasonable. If there is sufficient grounds for denial.

From the looks of it, your denial is rooted deeply in a priori religious beliefs.
I don't think a priori beliefs, religious or otherwise, is a good basis from denying evidence.

In fact, when new evidence contradicts a priori beliefs, then it makes up for a good learning moment. It's when you might have to alter your beliefs so that they match the new evidence.

Because when beliefs don't match the evidence of reality - it's not reality that is incorrect.

 

[Heyo]

the second because it's essentially a negative claims. You formulated it in such a way that you didn't have to use the word "not", but it is implied by the word "only".
The underlying actual claim is that life cannot come about from non-life. And this is something that can never be demonstrated. You can't demonstrate such negative claims.

Negative claims are notoriously hard to proof but sometimes it can be done. (See proof that square root of 2 is not a rational number.)
The nice thing about negative claims is that they are easily falsified. Only one counter example disproves the claim. Once we have a way from non living material to life, that gap is closed for gods. It doesn't even have to be the correct or most likely way life emanated on earth.

 

[Astrophile]

it's obvious .... that the universe had a beginning

It depends on what you mean by 'a beginning'. There wasn't a time when the universe didn't exist and a later time when it did exist; time itself came into existence at the Big Bang.

that the universe is FT

What does FT mean?

that Jesus tomb was found empty

Why doesn't St. Paul mention this? In I Corinthians 15:4-8, which was written before the Gospels, he says only that Jesus rose again on the third day and that he was seen by various witnesses, including Paul himself. He doesn't say anything about Jesus's tomb.