Ask me about Evolution

[Sculelos]

I ashed this in another thread but what are your proofs that the Universe is older then 5801 years?

 

[Skwim]

I ashed this in another thread but what are your proofs that the Universe is older then 5801 years?

By looking at the oldest stars, and also by measuring the rate of expansion http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_expansion.htmlof the universe.

Of course, to understand why these are so telling one has to understand a bit of cosmology, which isn't all that difficult to do. Good reading awaits you.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I ashed this in another thread but what are your proofs that the Universe is older then 5801 years?

Here is a fairly decent article covering a variety of the methods used to reach the current conclusion:

How are the ages of the Earth and universe calculated? | BioLogos

 

[savagewind]

One of the clues of common decent is similarities in different species. Correct?

 

[secret2]

One of the clues of common decent is similarities in different species. Correct?

It's just an inspiration. It by no means is counted as evidence.

 

[savagewind]

It's just an inspiration. It by no means is counted as evidence.

What does that mean?

 

[secret2]

What does that mean?

No contemporary scientific literature or theory argue for common descent using "human looks like ape" as evidence.

By the way, creationist and evolution-deniers always put too much emphasis only on phenotypes that are observable to bare eyes.

 

[savagewind]

No contemporary scientific literature or theory argue for common descent using "human looks like ape" as evidence.

By the way, creationist and evolution-deniers always put too much emphasis only on phenotypes that are observable to bare eyes.

OK, Whatever. I'm talking about bones not looks.

 

[fantome profane]

Naturalism, materialism and uniformitarianism.

So when you say "evolution", you mean "science".

 

[savagewind]

Is evidence of common descent similarities in DNA?

 

[savagewind]

Internal similarities (including structure and DNA) in two different species prove a common ancestor. Is this true or false, or partly true?

 

[FearGod]

I think the biggest reason that people don't "believe in" evolution is because they don't understand it. I would like to state that although evolution is only a theory, a theory holds a lot of value in the scientific community due to it being scrupulously tested.
It holds just as much merit as gravity.
So if you want to "debate" evolution with me, I am open to it.
In this manner I will present facts (NOT OPINIONS) with sources by credited sources or sources with credited sources. Youtube may be considered a proper source so long as the source is listed within the video.
A pastor or evangelical creationist that went to Bible college talking about evolution does not qualify as a source.
A professor from a credited university in the area of science is acceptable, or say a National Geographic video with sources from a credited source is acceptable as well.

The bible is not a credited source.

Abiogenesis and the Big Bang are two separate theories not to be confused with Darwin's Origin of the Species aka evolution.

My goal in doing this is only to further educate those who may be missing a fundamental understanding of basic biology.

How the evolutionist explain how the chicken acquired the knowledge that it needs to sit on it's eggs for fertilizing ?

where did this instinct come from and How did it develop?

Please explain in scientific means with proper sources.

 

[sonofdad]

Internal similarities (including structure and DNA) in two different species prove a common ancestor. Is this true or false, or partly true?

Yeah, sort of.

DNA is compared in many different ways to look for similarities. Shared, damaged genes for example are a big hint cause they shouldn't be under any selective pressure to be kept around.
In it self, DNA provides plenty of evidence for common ancestry.

But other methods are used as well. Creatures can be compared in all possible ways, we can watch their behavior, look at their bodily structure, inside and out, their bone structure, their habitats, their geographical distribution, and when dealing with fossils and creatures that died a long time ago; we estimate their age and fit them into the timeline.
Lots of data from many sources and lots of patterns within pointing to shared ancestry.

There's a pretty extensive overview of this in this wiki article if you want to find out more about the methods Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Alceste]

Is evidence of common descent similarities in DNA?

Part of it, yes. A pretty big part. The same way you can test to see who your baby's father is, or how any two people are related, you can test to see if any two living species are related, and how, and even estimate roughly how long ago the two species branched off from one another.

 

[Alceste]

Internal similarities (including structure and DNA) in two different species prove a common ancestor. Is this true or false, or partly true?

Proof is for whiskey and mathematics. Strands of identical DNA are evidence of common ancestry. Powerful evidence, but not our only evidence. The geographic proximity of genetically similar / morphologically similar species is another piece that we observed before we even knew DNA existed.

 

[Alceste]

How the evolutionist explain how the chicken acquired the knowledge that it needs to sit on it's eggs for fertilizing ?

where did this instinct come from and How did it develop?

Please explain in scientific means with proper sources.

I already explained this to you in another of your threads. Obviously it didn't sink in.

 

[FearGod]

I already explained this to you in another of your threads. Obviously it didn't sink in.

Are you sure that you did explain it in a scientific way other than randomness(mutations) and natural selection ?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yeah, sort of.

DNA is compared in many different ways to look for similarities. Shared, damaged genes for example are a big hint cause they shouldn't be under any selective pressure to be kept around.
In it self, DNA provides plenty of evidence for common ancestry.

But other methods are used as well. Creatures can be compared in all possible ways, we can watch their behavior, look at their bodily structure, inside and out, their bone structure, their habitats, their geographical distribution, and when dealing with fossils and creatures that died a long time ago; we estimate their age and fit them into the timeline.
Lots of data from many sources and lots of patterns within pointing to shared ancestry.

There's a pretty extensive overview of this in this wiki article if you want to find out more about the methods Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like this one...not entirely on topic, but it's interesting as hell, and does cover the relevance of DNA between humans and other primates in terms of a common ancestor.

http://www.ted.com/talks/juan_enriquez_will_our_kids_be_a_different_species.html

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Are you sure that you did explain it in a scientific way other than randomness(mutations) and natural selection ?

Those are scientific ways...it's a form of protecting that life, that's why they'll rest on their egg.

 

[Alceste]

Are you sure that you did explain it in a scientific way other than randomness(mutations) and natural selection ?

Positive.

You need a basic grasp of how evolution works before you can understand how any specific behavior or characteristic might evolve. I tried to give you that, too. Apparently it didn't sink in either.