Ask me about Evolution

[savagewind]

Let me be clear: Nobody made any such blanket statement, ever.

One more time: the only reason why similarities in DNA mean that various organisms are related is because of how reproduction works.

Similarity is not the cause of the relationship, but the effect of how reproduction works.

What about this don't you understand?

If similarities in DNA with Earth's species were discovered on another planet, what would the science community conclude?

 

[Falvlun]

If similarities in DNA with Earth's species were discovered on another planet, what would the science community conclude?

I'm not going to answer any more of your rabbit hole questions until I know that you understand how reproduction works, and therefore, why DNA is similar between two related organisms.

 

[savagewind]

I'm not going to answer any more of your rabbit hole questions until I know that you understand how reproduction works, and therefore, why DNA is similar between two related organisms.

LOL Can we really know anything? I took college biology. Do you believe me?

 

[Falvlun]

LOL Can we really know anything? I took college biology. Do you believe me?

I do not believe that you understand how reproduction works. Because, if you did, then you would not be so confused about why similar DNA denotes relatedness. I have no opinion about whether you have taken the class or not.

 

[savagewind]

I do not believe that you understand how reproduction works. Because, if you did, then you would not be so confused about why similar DNA denotes relatedness. I have no opinion about whether you have taken the class or not.

I am not arguing that similar DNA "denotes relatedness". I am arguing that it does not prove it. Tell you what. You prove to me you know the difference between indicate and prove. and I'll leave you alone. OK? I won't talk about evolution any more. I don't think I mean forever, but for a while, until the next time.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

If similarities in DNA with Earth's species were discovered on another planet, what would the science community conclude?

It could mean our DNA is not of Earth origin, or it could mean that, some how, some life forms have left Earth.

It really depends on the details though.

 

[savagewind]

It could mean our DNA is not of Earth origin, or it could mean that, some how, some life forms have left Earth.

It really depends on the details though.

Thank you brave person. I knew that was the answer.

 

[Alceste]

I am not arguing that similar DNA "denotes relatedness". I am arguing that it does not prove it. Tell you what. You prove to me you know the difference between indicate and prove. and I'll leave you alone. OK? I won't talk about evolution any more. I don't think I mean forever, but for a while, until the next time.

We don't need proof. We only need evidence and reason. In this case, we have so much evidence that disbelief in evolution flies in the face of reason.

 

[savagewind]

We don't need proof. We only need evidence and reason. In this case, we have so much evidence that disbelief in evolution flies in the face of reason.

You don't need proof but you call it proof.

 

[Alceste]

You don't need proof but you call it proof.

No I don't. I've corrected you every single time you've asked for proof, and explained that we are working with evidence, not proof. That's how science works.

 

[savagewind]

No I don't. I've corrected you every single time you've asked for proof, and explained that we are working with evidence, not proof. That's how science works.

Yes you call it proof and maybe you do not say "it is proof" but you stubornly insist everyone should see it your way and so it is proof. Why else would you be baffled that others do not interpret the evidence the same way you do? Because you believe the evidence is proof. proof - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument
I don't remember asking for proof.

 

[Alceste]

Yes you call it proof and maybe you do not say "it is proof" but you stubornly insist everyone should see it your way and so it is proof. Why else would you be baffled that others do not interpret the evidence the same way you do? Because you believe the evidence is proof. proof - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument
I don't remember asking for proof.

It's not "my way", it's the way of 99.9% of the experts in the field (biologists) of determining what the evidence we have collected shows. "My way" is acknowledging that those who spend their entire lives collecting, examining and contemplating the available evidence are in a better position than I am to make claims about what the evidence shows. All I can do in these threads is paraphrase their findings in the hope that those who have not been exposed to them may come to understand what the evidence shows, according to the experts.

If it's "stubborn" to insist that we humbly defer to the findings of experts in any given field rather than arrogantly insisting the experts are idiots and we know better, despite never having bothered to even look at the evidence, so be it. I'm stubborn that way.

 

[Curious George]

Yes you call it proof and maybe you do not say "it is proof" but you stubornly insist everyone should see it your way and so it is proof. Why else would you be baffled that others do not interpret the evidence the same way you do? Because you believe the evidence is proof. proof - Demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument
I don't remember asking for proof.

I'll call it proof, if we are talking about the body of evidence that supports evolution occurring. Evolution happens; I certainly won't say we know everything about evolution but the evidence is sufficient to act as proof.

 

[FearGod]

I'll call it proof, if we are talking about the body of evidence that supports evolution occurring. Evolution happens; I certainly won't say we know everything about evolution but the evidence is sufficient to act as proof.

But you can't prove who exactly cause it,mutations & natural selection or a supernatural designer.

 

[Curious George]

But you can't prove who exactly cause it,mutations & natural selection or a supernatural designer.

Absolutely true. We can say that evolution happens though. We can say that as far as schools are concerned the one's that teach young earth creationism are lying more blatantly to kids than any teacher who professes naturalism.

 

[FearGod]

Absolutely true. We can say that evolution happens though. We can say that as far as schools are concerned the one's that teach young earth creationism are lying more blatantly to kids than any teacher who professes naturalism.

But things should first created then next evolve,there should be a starting point for things to evolve.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

But things should first created then next evolve,there should be a starting point for things to evolve.

And that is Abiogenesis not Evolution.

 

[FearGod]

And that is Abiogenesis not Evolution.

What proof we got that Abiogenesis had occurred naturally billions of years ago so we can exclude the superpower deity (the creator).

 

[Agnostic75]

But things should first [be] created, then next evolve, [and] there should be a starting point for things to evolve.

Perhaps aliens brought life to earth. If that happened, that does not explain where the aliens came from, but it explains where life on earth came from.

Many physicists believe that it is plausible that other universes exist. If that is true, perhaps energy from another universe caused the Big Bang that started this universe.

Consider the following:

Victor Stenger: Did the Universe Come From Nothing?

Victor Stenger, Ph.D., physics, best-selling author

.......modern cosmology suggests that the universe was not created, that it is eternal in time.

I do not know of a single working cosmologist today who says the universe began with a singularity.

Some Christian authors and debaters also refer to other more recent calculations claiming these require the universe to have a beginning. To give the shortest possible rebuttal, I will just quote the Cal Tech cosmologist Sean Carroll, who wrote me in an email: "No result derived on the basis of classical general relativity can be used to derive anything truly fundamental, since classical general relativity isn't right. You need to quantize gravity."

So the universe need not have had a beginning. But let's suppose for a moment that it did. That fact alone would not prove it was purposefully created. Another premise must be made to show that. The assumption must be added that everything that begins has a cause. Once again, this ignores quantum mechanics, where events commonly occur without cause. This is the case for the atomic transitions that give us light and the nuclear decays that give us nuclear radiation. They all happen spontaneously, without cause. In short, all attempts to prove that the universe had to have a beginning caused by God fail on several fronts.

The third creationist argument called the anthropic cosmological principle, made by a whole army of Christian theologians and authors, is that the universe is fine-tuned for life, in particular, human life. Here the story is even more complicated because several notable physicists think such fine-tuning does exist, although they attribute it to natural causes rather than a creator God. I identify with an opposition group of physicists who see no need to invoke the anthropic principle at all. We can offer natural explanations for all the values of all parameters claimed to be fine-tuned (see The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning, in press).

In other words, many physicists agree with you that something has to be eternal, but not necessarily a conscious being like the gods of many religions.

 

[Falvlun]

But things should first created then next evolve,there should be a starting point for things to evolve.

The point is, we don't know precisely how life first developed, whether through naturalistic means or supernatural ones, but we do know how it developed after that point-- through evolution.

Not knowing the beginning does not negate the part we do know.

(And not to mention, such questions could be put to everything: It is possible that gravity is caused by a supernatural being, it is possible that gods cause illnesses and not germs, it is possible that we all poofed into existence last Thursday. But since there is no evidence of such, and much evidence for naturalistic mechanisms, the naturalistic understanding trumps these "possibilities".)