Ask me about Evolution

[Monk Of Reason]

So you can't bring any evidence and i have to enroll in a high school to find the evidence myself.

How silly............

It is impossible for you to make an argument and be taken seriously about this "lack of evidence" stance. Let me link you to a thread that is litterally right next to this one.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

 

[Warren Clark]

I have one for the OP and the rest. Are we actually evolving now in a broader sense? Yes we are but are there drastic changes. In the wild if you we're not strong enough you died. Not smart or quick enough you died. Now that aspect has left.

Therefore has evolution become irrelevant because it is no longer the quickest, smartest, strongest that spread their genes? Should we not be more focused on engineering our own physical evolution in labs?

There are quite a few "theories" (or ideas rather) of what we are evolving to look like.
One is that we will have larger eyes and smaller mouths/jaws.
In sense, we will turn into the "greys" we know so well from science fiction.
Humans in 100,000 years: What will we look like? | Fox News

We can't be certain what we will look like 100,000 - 1 million years from now.
All we know is we are always evolving. Slowly, but surely.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are multiple philosophies that match the data, but only one philosophy is called science because it is naturalistic in nature. By default the science philosophy is going to be the best explanation, whether it matches the data closer than the other philosophy or not. Hence, philosophy determines what is taught in school, not the truth necessarily.

Only one is called science because it is observable, testable, verifiable and repeatable and aligns with all available data. That's it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is wrong because the data that is touted as evidence for the philosophy of evolution came after Darwin. Under Darwinian evolution there should not be any differences in micro vs. macro evolution, but we see that there is and even evolutionists are teaching that now at the colleges.

Macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolution. They're not two different, independent things.

Do you seriously think Darwin didn't have any data???

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you can't bring any evidence and i have to enroll in a high school to find the evidence myself.

How silly............

Yeah, that's what the rest of us did. There's a mountain of evidence out there for anyone to look over.

The only person responsible for educating you, is you. If you prefer ignorance, then I don't know what to tell ya. Educating yourself is not silly, in any sense of the word.

Face palm, indeed.

 

[FearGod]

Yeah, that's what the rest of us did. There's a mountain of evidence out there for anyone to look over.

The only person responsible for educating you, is you. If you prefer ignorance, then I don't know what to tell ya. Educating yourself is not silly, in any sense of the word.

Face palm, indeed.

Didn't you read the title of the thread " Ask me about Evolution"

Better to change it to "Read a book about Evolution"

 

[SkepticThinker]

Didn't you read the title of the thread " Ask me about Evolution"

Better to change it to "Read a book about Evolution"

Did you somehow miss the 27 pages of responses to such questions?

I mean, if you're not going to take it in, why would someone bother spending the time repeatedly explaining something to you?

 

[FearGod]

Did you somehow miss the 27 pages of responses to such questions?

I mean, if you're not going to take it in, why would someone bother spending the time repeatedly explaining something to you?

Show me one good scientific answer that were posted to me so i'll discuss it with you.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

There are multiple philosophies that match the data, but only one philosophy is called science because it is naturalistic in nature. By default the science philosophy is going to be the best explanation, whether it matches the data closer than the other philosophy or not. Hence, philosophy determines what is taught in school, not the truth necessarily.

Science is not called 'science' because it is "naturalistic in nature".
The word 'science' comes from the latin "scientia" which means "knowledge".
...and what I highlighted in your post in red is where you went wrong.

Science IS what most closely matches the data. If new and different data/information/reproducible evidence/proof comes up, then the science on the subject changes accordingly. If new information comes along that disproves an old theory, then the old theory is thrown out or changed to fit the data.
This last bit is where many religions and philosophies differ from science/knowledge. With the former, there is adherence to the theories/myths/philosophy, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

We try to have the truth/facts/reality taught in schools; or at least that system of thought that 'matches the data closest'. Not wishful thinking that is without evidence, or even is flattly denied by the data.

Wellll....at least in public schools.

“In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
-- Carl Sagan​

 

[SkepticThinker]

Show me one good scientific answer that were posted to me so i'll discuss it with you.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.
There are 27 pages of good answers. Go ahead and read them.

 

[FearGod]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.
There are 27 pages of good answers. Go ahead and read them.

:biglaugh:

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

:biglaugh:

What exactly is it you don't accept?

Evolution of any form? Macro-evolution(whatever that is)? Speciation? Or what?

 

[adi2d]

What exactly is it you don't accept?

Evolution of any form? Macro-evolution(whatever that is)? Speciation? Or what?

I think just can't admit to being a monkeys uncle














I know I know science guys and gals but monkeys cousin doesn't have the same ring to it

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Well some prehistoric monkeys are our uncle as some are a related branch of our direct monkey ancestor. So we're a monkeys nephew/niece.

 

[adi2d]

Well some prehistoric monkeys are our uncle as some are a related branch of our direct monkey ancestor. So we're a monkeys nephew/niece.

Ok that sounds right. Now I have a tougher real life one

My brothers daughters sons cousin. what do I call him?

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Ok that sounds right. Now I have a tougher real life one

My brothers daughters sons cousin. what do I call him?

I think that would be like your 2nd grand nephew or something. Then again, a 2nd grand nephew could also mean your 2nd cousin's grandson. Or would that be the same person?

Edit: Or, it could just be your grandson, but I'm assuming it's not?

Edit 2: I think I got it down. Either it's your grandson, or you have a third sibling that has grandkids, in which case it's just a grand nephew, or you're just not related to him at all.

Edit 3: Actually I think it's most likely the brother has a daughter as well as another offspring and that offspring also has a son, which is the cousin of your granddaughter's son. It would just be another grand nephew like the granddaughter's son. You'd be equally related to both. Wow, that took a loot of mental power; probably more than it should.

 

[adi2d]

I think that would be like your 2nd grand nephew/niece, or something. Then again, a 2nd grand nephew/niece could also mean your 2nd cousin's grand kid. Or would that be the same person?

Lucky for me he just gurgles and smiles for now. Well when he starts grunting or not smiling I just pass him on to someone else. Its one of the perks of being the oldest in the room

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Okay I edited my post. I think I got it down.

 

[SkepticThinker]

:biglaugh:

Did you read them yet?

 

[Looncall]

But creation accounts for DNA too you know. We who believe in creation do not think DNA does not exist.

My point in mentioning multiple discoveries is to prove similarities do not always prove a link.

Your similarities are of different kinds. Independent discoveries have nothing to do with similarities arising from evolution.

The really important point about genetic similarities is that they form a nested hierarchy (check it out if you are not familiar with the term). Those similarities form a coherent structure of relationships.