The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Kerr]

Not according to my sources.

Ok, then please show your sources so that we can take a look and discuss this better .

 

[ragordon168]

Tell me the something that you say has no physical values and I will try to help you out.

faith. i can understand the electrical neural pulses but nothing beyond that.

i understand how the brain responds to music but not why i like death metal and my brother likes rap.

 

[Man of Faith]

That's a bold claim. I'd love to hear you support it (the claim that the evidence we have could support a literal interpretation of the Bible, that is).

I am pleased to make this demonstration, however keep in mind, I'm not a scientist, I am a man of faith, and I have a day job so give me a little while. I will take the first evidence posted by the good fellow the madhair and show how it can be interpreted to support the creationist model. It is lunch time however and almost time to listen to Rush Limbaugh so it will be a while. However it is on my agenda for this afternoon. Have a great lunch.


Originally Posted by themadhair
My DNA contains:
1) The genes for generating a tail (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.

 

[Man of Faith]

faith. i can understand the electrical neural pulses but nothing beyond that.

i understand how the brain responds to music but not why i like death metal and my brother likes rap.

I am not going to demonstrate that faith is real, we should all know that, what I did was take my faith in the Bible and prove parts of the Bible true scientifically.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I am not going to demonstrate that faith is real, we should all know that, what I did was take my faith in the Bible and prove parts of the Bible true scientifically.

You have yet to provide evidence of this.

 

[te_lanus]

Not according to my sources.

Could you please divulge these sources. without divulging it, it makes you look like one big liar

Tell me the something that you say has no physical values and I will try to help you out.

that isn't a answer for the question he asked you.

<start rant> I get the urge to add this emoticon :troll: because that to me is what you are doing. You make claims you can't backup and then say that it is faith alone. Faith isn't a science. </stop ranting>

 

[Kerr]

I am not going to demonstrate that faith is real, we should all know that, what I did was take my faith in the Bible and prove parts of the Bible true scientifically.

What parts? If you speak for a young Earth, for example, there are many factors you need to overcome that are explained by an older world. Just as a creationist argument does not explain the cases of evolution we have seen.

 

[ragordon168]

I am not going to demonstrate that faith is real, we should all know that.

yes but so is music / art but we cant explain why different people like different styles.

I know of identical twins who like different music/ art styles and have different dress senses. if twins are identical down to the genetic level why do these traits different.

that is the idea you would need to prove, something that exists soley in a persons conciousness

 

[themadhair]

Since the scientific illiterate asked, and apparently is unable to do his own research, I’ll describe some of the evidence that Darwin used. All the following are discussed, in some depth, in his book.

1) Variation and the effect of Natural Selection.
Darwin describe the variances of many populations (the finches being the best known). He also discussed, at great length, the effect of selective breeding. This formed the basis of the mechanism he proposed for evolutionary change. Note that he proposed natural selection as this mechanism, which later after Darwin was combined with Mendelian genetics to form evolutionary theory.
2) Fossils.
Darwin noted the fossil record contained creatures that no longer existed. He also noted that difference creatures were relegated to different strata. Darwin also noted the progression that could be seen in the fossil record within some creatures.

We can understand how it is that all the forms of life, ancient and recent, make together a few grand classes. We can understand, from the continued tendency to divergence of character, why the more ancient a form is, the more it generally differs from those now living; why ancient and extinct forms often tend to fill up gaps between existing forms, sometimes blending two groups, previously classed as distinct, into one; but more commonly bringing them only a little closer together. The more ancient a form is, the more often it stands in some degree intermediate between groups now distinct; for the more ancient a form is, the more nearly it will be related to, and consequently resemble, the common progenitor of groups, since become widely divergent. Extinct forms are seldom directly intermediate between existing forms; but are intermediate only by a long and circuitous course through other extinct and different forms. We can clearly see why the organic remains of closely consecutive formations are closely allied; for they are closely linked together by generation. We can clearly see why the remains of an intermediate formation are intermediate in character.

3) Biogeography.
If his ideas of descent with modification were true, then this should be reflected within the geographic distribution of the animals. It is. Darwin also detailed how fossil records also conform to the same geographic dispersions that are consistent with common descent.

Mr. Clift many years ago showed that the fossil mammals from the Australian caves were closely allied to the living marsupials of that continent. In South America, a similar relationship is manifest, even to an uneducated eye, in the gigantic pieces of armour, like those of the armadillo, found in several parts of La Plata; and Professor Owen has shown in the most striking manner that most of the fossil mammals, buried there in such numbers, are related to South American types. This relationship is even more clearly seen in the wonderful collection of fossil bones made by MM. Lund and Clausen in the caves of Brazil. I was so much impressed with these facts that I strongly insisted, in 1839 and 1845, on this “law of the succession of types,”—on “this wonderful relationship in the same continent between the dead and the living.” Professor Owen has subsequently extended the same generalisation to the mammals of the Old World. We see the same law in this author’s restorations of the extinct and gigantic birds of New Zealand. We see it also in the birds of the caves of Brazil. Mr. Woodward has shown that the same law holds good with sea-shells, but, from the wide distribution of most molluscs, it is not well displayed by them. Other cases could be added, as the relation between the extinct and living land-shells of Madeira; and between the extinct and living brackish water-shells of the Aralo-Caspian Sea.

Darwin was pretty upfront with any questions or problems he had with his ideas. One of these concerned the relationship between marsupials and placental mammals. Australia, due to being isolated, threw up a problem for common descent because of the close relationship between marsupials and placental mammals. Darwin was a pretty learned man when it came to geology and the works of Hutton and Lyle. The occurrence of glaciation was his attempt to fix the problem with the marsupials. He was wrong about the glaciation. It turned out, and this wasn’t discovered until a century later, that plate tectonics was the reason. Australia’s location in the past perfectly aligns with the mammal/marsupial relationship that Darwin had noted.
4) Embryology.
The commonality, and in particular how embryology appears to act out its evolutionary history, is pretty powerful evidence on its own.

It has already been stated that various parts in the same individual which are exactly alike during an early embryonic period, become widely different and serve for widely different purposes in the adult state. So again it has been shown that generally the embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar. A better proof of this latter fact cannot be given than the statement by Von Baer that “the embryos of mammalia, of birds, lizards, and snakes, probably also of chelonia, are in their earliest states exceedingly like one another, both as a whole and in the mode of development of their parts; so much so, in fact, that we can often distinguish the embryos only by their size. In my possession are two little embryos in spirit, whose names I have omitted to attach, and at present I am quite unable to say to what class they belong. They may be lizards or small birds, or very young mammalia, so complete is the similarity in the mode of formation of the head and trunk in these animals. The extremities, however, are still absent in these embryos. But even if they had existed in the earliest stage of their development we should learn nothing, for the feet of lizards and mammals, the wings and feet of birds, no less than the hands and feet of man, all arise from the same fundamental form.” The larvæ of most crustaceans, at corresponding stages of development, closely resemble each other, however different the adults may become; and so it is with very many other animals. A trace of the law of embryonic resemblance occasionally lasts till a rather late age: thus birds of the same genus, and of allied genera, often resemble each other in their immature plumage; as we see in the spotted feathers in the young of the thrush group. In the cat tribe, most of the species when adult are striped or spotted in lines; and stripes or spots can be plainly distinguished in the whelp of the lion and the puma.

5) Nested hierarchies.
Common descent predicts the existence of nested hierarchies. The classification system that was developed by Linnaeus nearly a century earlier is entirely explained by common descent.

Finally, we have seen that natural selection, which follows from the struggle for existence, and which almost inevitably leads to extinction and divergence of character in the descendants from any one parent-species, explains that great and universal feature in the affinities of all organic beings, namely, their subordination in group under group. We use the element of descent in classing the individuals of both sexes and of all ages under one species, although they may have but few characters in common; we use descent in classing acknowledged varieties, however different they may be from their parents; and I believe that this element of descent is the hidden bond of connexion which naturalists have sought under the term of the Natural System.

6) Vestigial organs.

It would at first lead by slow steps to the more and more complete reduction of a part, until at last it became rudimentary,—as in the case of the eyes of animals inhabiting dark caverns, and of the wings of birds inhabiting oceanic islands, which have seldom been forced by beasts of prey to take flight, and have ultimately lost the power of flying. Again, an organ, useful under certain conditions, might become injurious under others, as with the wings of beetles living on small and exposed islands; and in this case natural selection will have aided in reducing the organ, until it was rendered harmless and rudimentary.

In conclusion.
The bit that cracks me up is that, even in 1859, the preponderance of evidence available screamed common descent. Creationists don’t realise that. And from 1859 to the present day those pesky scientists have gone and found more truckloads of evidence. It is actually embarrassing that people will boldly claim to have read a book while being simultaneously utterly ignorant of its contents.

Here is the difference between the bible and origins. I have no problem pointing out the mistakes made by the origins (and have included one in the above). But the actual idea presented in the origins, evolution and common descent, is supported by the evidence and 150 years of research done since origins was published. The fundies, however, cannot accept the errors in the bible nor can they confront and examine the plethora of evidence that exists in this world. Instead we have just such a fundie trying to dismiss a book that I don’t think anyone on this forum believes he has even read.

 

[Man of Faith]

I am pleased to make this demonstration, however keep in mind, I'm not a scientist, I am a man of faith, and I have a day job so give me a little while. I will take the first evidence posted by the good fellow the madhair and show how it can be interpreted to support the creationist model. It is lunch time however and almost time to listen to Rush Limbaugh so it will be a while. However it is on my agenda for this afternoon. Have a great lunch.


Originally Posted by themadhair
My DNA contains:
1) The genes for generating a tail (deactivated) in exactly the right spot for common descent.

This is the question of vestigal organs, such as a tail bone for a tail in humans, which evolutionists like to say is evidence of a left over tail. Remember children once had their tonsils removed because they thought they were a useless vestigal organ, however we now know they are part of the immune system. The tail bone is actually useful and could be viewed as part of creation because muscles attach to it to help in posture and defecation.

 

[tumbleweed41]

This is the question of vestigal organs, such as a tail bone for a tail in humans, which evolutionists like to say is evidence of a left over tail. Remember children once had their tonsils removed because they thought they were a useless vestigal organ, however we now know they are part of the immune system. The tail bone is actually useful and could be viewed as part of creation because muscles attach to it to help in posture and defecation.

Yet the DNA for a fully formed tail still exists. Just as it does with other members of the ape family.

All you have discussed is the tail bone we now have. Not the inactive tail DNA.

 

[Autodidact]

Here is proof that the ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence. The evidence that is presented below wasn't around when the ToE was formed by Darwin. So what we have is a theory presented then the data being interpreted to support the theory.

Let me follow your logic: Darwin created a hypothesis based on the evidence he observed. All the evidence found since then confirms that hypothesis. That shows that the evidence doesn't support the theory???

I don't think you really understand how science works. Darwin is not a prophet, and we don't accept his theory because of his work only. It's precisely because all the evidence since then confirmed it that his theory eventually became accepted by the scientific establishment after he died. As each year goes by, and all the evidence continues to support it, and his predictions are borne out, that acceptance becomes stronger and stronger, until it reaches scientific consensus. That's where we're at now.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't deny that. Everyone decides what they want to believe then interpretes the data to support their position, or support the scientists on their side. I believe by faith in a 6 day creation as described in the Bible and I interpret the scientific data to support my position. This post is to show the evolutionists that their theory came first, the evidence did not lead to the ToE.

No, Man of Faith, that's what you do. Honest people base their beliefs on the evidence, and change them when the evidence warrants it. Your post showed only that the evidence, rather than undermining the hypothesis, confirmed it. FAIL.

 

[themadhair]

This is the question of vestigal organs, such as a tail bone for a tail in humans, which evolutionists like to say is evidence of a left over tail.

The tail DNA is still there. It even gets reactivated every so often leading to human child being born with a tail. So yeah, I pretty much screams evidence left over from an ancestral tail.

Remember children once had their tonsils removed because they thought they were a useless vestigal organ, however we now know they are part of the immune system.

Tonsils are vestigial. They have lost much of their original function which sort of the requirement for being a vestigial organ.
And you have flat out lied about why tonsils were removed. Do you do any research whatsoever of do you just repeat crap you read elsewhere??

The tail bone is actually ….

And the tail DNA?

 

[Autodidact]

Thank you for supporting my position that the ToE came before the evidence, the cart before the horse so to speak. Which would conclude that the evidence did not lead to the ToE.

NO, it went like this: evidence => hypothesis => more evidence => theory => more evidence => confirmation of theory => yet more evidence => acceptance of theory => overwhelming evidence => consensus.

 

[themadhair]

@ Auto - learn to multiquote. Please.

 

[Man of Faith]

Since the scientific illiterate asked, and apparently is unable to do his own research, I’ll describe some of the evidence that Darwin used. All the following are discussed, in some depth, in his book.

1) Variation and the effect of Natural Selection.
Darwin describe the variances of many populations (the finches being the best known). He also discussed, at great length, the effect of selective breeding. This formed the basis of the mechanism he proposed for evolutionary change. Note that he proposed natural selection as this mechanism, which later after Darwin was combined with Mendelian genetics to form evolutionary theory.
2) Fossils.
Darwin noted the fossil record contained creatures that no longer existed. He also noted that difference creatures were relegated to different strata. Darwin also noted the progression that could be seen in the fossil record within some creatures.

3) Biogeography.
If his ideas of descent with modification were true, then this should be reflected within the geographic distribution of the animals. It is. Darwin also detailed how fossil records also conform to the same geographic dispersions that are consistent with common descent.

Darwin was pretty upfront with any questions or problems he had with his ideas. One of these concerned the relationship between marsupials and placental mammals. Australia, due to being isolated, threw up a problem for common descent because of the close relationship between marsupials and placental mammals. Darwin was a pretty learned man when it came to geology and the works of Hutton and Lyle. The occurrence of glaciation was his attempt to fix the problem with the marsupials. He was wrong about the glaciation. It turned out, and this wasn’t discovered until a century later, that plate tectonics was the reason. Australia’s location in the past perfectly aligns with the mammal/marsupial relationship that Darwin had noted.
4) Embryology.
The commonality, and in particular how embryology appears to act out its evolutionary history, is pretty powerful evidence on its own.

5) Nested hierarchies.
Common descent predicts the existence of nested hierarchies. The classification system that was developed by Linnaeus nearly a century earlier is entirely explained by common descent.

6) Vestigial organs.


In conclusion.
The bit that cracks me up is that, even in 1859, the preponderance of evidence available screamed common descent. Creationists don’t realise that. And from 1859 to the present day those pesky scientists have gone and found more truckloads of evidence. It is actually embarrassing that people will boldly claim to have read a book while being simultaneously utterly ignorant of its contents.

Here is the difference between the bible and origins. I have no problem pointing out the mistakes made by the origins (and have included one in the above). But the actual idea presented in the origins, evolution and common descent, is supported by the evidence and 150 years of research done since origins was published. The fundies, however, cannot accept the errors in the bible nor can they confront and examine the plethora of evidence that exists in this world. Instead we have just such a fundie trying to dismiss a book that I don’t think anyone on this forum believes he has even read.

Thank you for this well written post, however I see other possiblities other than common ancestry of all life forms.
1) Variation within finchs, dogs, or any other type of animal isn't evidence for common descent. That is evidence of evolution by natural selection yes, but not common descent.
2) Fossils aren't evidence of common descent, just evidence of a dead animal. And we all know the lack of convincing fossil evidence for common descent.
3) Evidence of animal migrations are not evidence of common descent, that is what we would expect to see when they all left the Ark.
4) There have been a lot of faked embryos over the years we better throw that out.
5) Earlier-believed nested hierarchies are often overturned as more evidence is accumulated.
6) The tonsils used to be understood to be vestigal, now we know they are part of the immune system.

 

[Man of Faith]

The tail DNA is still there. It even gets reactivated every so often leading to human child being born with a tail. So yeah, I pretty much screams evidence left over from an ancestral tail.

Tonsils are vestigial. They have lost much of their original function which sort of the requirement for being a vestigial organ.
And you have flat out lied about why tonsils were removed. Do you do any research whatsoever of do you just repeat crap you read elsewhere??

And the tail DNA?

If we have a tail bone, we will have the tail bone DNA, that is not a mystery. When children are born with a "tail" that is actually fatty tissue, not a tail bone.

 

[Man of Faith]

Yet the DNA for a fully formed tail still exists. Just as it does with other members of the ape family.

All you have discussed is the tail bone we now have. Not the inactive tail DNA.

That's impossible, if we had DNA for a fully developed tail then we would have fully developed tails.

 

[freethinker44]

YouTube - Evidence for Evolution, Part III


A video on ERVs in human and chimp dna.

The ERVs were inserted in a common ancestor and stayed with both chimps and humans on different evolutionary paths.