What's the Deal with Evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

So you actually think that a dog doesn't have the right to vote because Darwin was wrong?

The ridiculousness of the Theory of Evolution just shot through the roof with your thinking.

According to his line of...reasoning?, Darwin wants that dogs vote.

 

[Valjean]

Even if it was allegorical, God is still the creator.
And if it's allegorical, what is it an allegory for?

What evidence do you have for that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

Since you brought science into this, according to the methods of science, humans are a species of ape. Therefore, we have the same DNA as an ape. We do not have the exact sequences of the other species of apes, but very, very close.

Sorry, YOU are wrong once again.

Go get some DNA from an ape and send it to ancestor.com then. See if it's related to George Washington.

 

[Valjean]

It isn't it amusing how you start demanding answers after a series of questions you have avoided. I never see this sort of action from the staunch defenders of ignorance except always.

Huh?

 

[Wildswanderer]

How so?

It means a dog is my ancestor. Not that specific dog, but certainly canines would be my kin.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, you didn't even read what I wrote. If Darwin was correct, all us animals have the same rights.

But he wasn't correct.

I read what you post and respond to that nonsense as it comes up.

What you are saying has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and is just a silly tactic you manufactured to attack and deny science, because you have nothing else.

It is not the first time in history that we see someone attempt to pervert science for their own ends.

 

[Wildswanderer]

False. It is a model that was derived from the evidence and that all the subsequent evidence has been found to support.



Also false.

Easy to say. But science makes lots of assumptions. And scientists admit this.

 

[ratiocinator]

It means a dog is my ancestor.

Again, simply false. You clearly don't have the first inking of any understanding of the theory you are trying to criticise.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Huh?

I have asked @Wildswanderer many questions and he has very obviously avoided answering them. Which makes his demands for answers amusing as well as hypocritical.

That was my response to his demand to answer a question.

 

[ratiocinator]

Easy to say.

And also true.

But science makes lots of assumptions.

And then tests them against observations and/or experiments. The ToE is very, very well tested.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Again, simply false. You clearly don't have the first inking of any understanding of the theory you are trying to criticise.

Every animal has to be related to every other animal for the ToE to work.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It means a dog is my ancestor. Not that specific dog, but certainly canines would be my kin.

LOL! Canines are mammals. Humans are mammals. We share DNA sequences to a point.

But even a biological relationship does not mean that we cannot have the relationship we have with dogs.

Just because we all evolved doesn't mean you can't have a puppy. You just have to treat it nice.

 

[ratiocinator]

Every animal has to be related to every other animal for the ToE to work.

Which doesn't change the fact that your claim ("It means a dog is my ancestor.") was simply false.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Every animal has to be related to every other animal for the ToE to work.

The ToE explains why we see all those similarities. That is what makes it work.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And also true.



And then tests them against observations and/or experiments. The ToE is very, very well tested.

Lol, it's still full of assumptions.


The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted. F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes:“We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

Another assumption: One should not drag in a creator (or synonyms such as designer, planning spirit, or “demiurge”). Ernest Kahane, a French molecular biologist, formulates it as follows: “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it, because I cannot imagine anything else.”

Mutation and selection are the driving forces of evolution” (K. Lorenz).
If there were only one single example (experiment or observation) of the origin of a new kind of organism or a new structure, then this would have been a derived theory. The mechanisms, mutation and selection, do occur, and the appearance of a new kind would imply new genetic information. Because of the lack of any evidence of new genetic information, it remains an assumption.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I made this thread.​

I had a feeling it was going to go this way.

 

[Valjean]

No I mean I would not have the right to have a dog for a pet if Darwin's theory was correct and we are just animals. Or God forbid, to actually eat a dog or a cow or a sheep would be like eating great grandma.

I'm not seeing your reasoning here. Explain?

Darwin's theory is the model all the finds are plugged into. Put the same find into a creation model and it fits fine.

Creationism is not science. Creationism is not based on evidence, and it's certainly not tested.
The ToE is not comparable to religion.

You should try using logic sometimes...

You should question your premises.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The ToE explains why we see all those similarities. That is what makes it work.

"A pig is a dog is a boy."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Lol, it's still full of assumptions.


The basic principle, evolution, is taken for granted. F.M. Wuketits, an evolution theorist, writes:“We pre-suppose the essential correctness of biological evolution, yes, we assume that evolution is universally valid.”

Are you just quote mining or can you provide the source and context of this mined quote?

Another assumption: One should not drag in a creator

(or synonyms such as designer, planning spirit, or “demiurge”). Ernest Kahane, a French molecular biologist, formulates it as follows: “It is absurd and absolutely preposterous to believe that a living cell could come into existence by itself; but, notwithstanding, I do believe it, because I cannot imagine anything else.”

Are you just quote mining or can you provide the source and context of this mined quote?

Mutation and selection are the driving forces of evolution” (K. Lorenz).
If there were only one single example (experiment or observation) of the origin of a new kind of organism or a new structure, then this would have been a derived theory. The mechanisms, mutation and selection, do occur, and the appearance of a new kind would imply new genetic information. Because of the lack of any evidence of new genetic information, it remains an assumption.

Is this last your words are you just posting from some website without attributing it.

Mutation and selection are the driving forces of evolution. The evidence supports that and it is not an assumption.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"A pig is a dog is a boy."

So Pigdogboy and Manbearpig are all you have to respond with? Do you have anything real to tell us?