Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

There's actual evidence for planets orbiting a star. Such as telescopes. That would not be supposition. There is no actual evidence for humans evolving from rats.

Humans did not evolve from rats, so evidence of that wouldn't exist or be expected.

The conclusion that this is a straw man argument is based on those facts where the claim is offered as evidence against the theory when it isn't. That is what is meant by a straw man argument. An argument is made based on things that are not facts and thus easy to beat up on like beating up man made out of straw.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Just one question to @Dan From Smithville and @Subduction Zone or anyone else who cares to answer -- I've been looking for a chart or simple explanation of the evolution of life starting from the first cells. if you can link me to one, please...

There's no chart that I know of, but a simple explanation...I'll have to see if I have something or know of something and get back to you.

Essentially, once heritable genetic variation arose in those early populations, changes in the environment that favored those with traits that increased their reproductive success even a little bit, the populations began to evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've been looking, but cannot find "evidence" that animal and plant life separated at a certain point. What do you think other than I'm ueducated?

You can check these out. They may help increase your understanding.

Evolution: When was life's first branch point? - ScienceDirect

Elsevier Enhanced Reader

Elsevier Enhanced Reader

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes but where is the "evidence" that plant life and animal life came from the same stem or different stems? Pardon me if I do not speak in your educated terminology, but hopefully you understand the question. Please show evidence. Thank you.

You're asking when the ancestors of plants and animals first diverged. I've posted some links above to literature that might help you. I'll see if there is anything else I can find and post links to that when I do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Again, nothng but insults on your part. The fact that you refuse to answer questions but keep talking as to how some won't understand doesn't help your case. And in fact makes me further believe you don't know what you're talking about. While I surely don't claim to know everything, I have learned that you keep talking about evidence as if that's the answer that is how life came about from a few cells, a soupy mass, or maybe some structures that fell upon the earth, chemical reactions made it grow to plants and animals.

Recall back to my post about George Washington. He isn't someone that anyone alive today has ever seen, but I can't imagine a rational person that would deny he existed and wasn't a significant figure in the birth of this country. Why? Evidence. That is all we have to go on today regarding George Washington or any historical figure from longer ago that 100-150 years ago. It is a logical review of that evidence that I have seen since childhood that leads me to accept that George Washington was real person. Lead the Continental army. And was the first president. We have independent accounts from the time. Official records. Portraits. His signature. And so forth.

For evolution, we have evidence from a host of scientific disciplines. For instance, genetics, paleontology, microbiology, molecular biology, chemistry and geology. The list is not limited to just those examples. The same logical criteria for viewing the evidence of science is no different than that used to review evidence for an historical figure. You cannot claim something in science without evidence and the experiments used to test the evidence.

If I claim Sappy the Clown crossed the Delaware with Washington, and was instrumental in the success of the Continental army at Yorktown, you would laugh at the suggestion and rightly so. There is no evidence for Sappy the Clown or for anyone with a similar name during that period in the early history of this country. Clowns don't normally go into battle and people don't normally dress like clowns for war (some of them do lead countries, but that is another story). Someone going into battle by that name is ridiculous on the face of it. You simply would not accept the claim. No evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've been looking, but cannot find "evidence" that animal and plant life separated at a certain point. What do you think other than I'm ueducated?

It is probably because you are afraid and cannot honestly look at the evidence. You keep telling us that you do not understand the concept of evidence, but then you run away from offers to help you to understand.

By the way, do you think that you could justify your claim about you know that there is evidence for planetary motion. You mentioned telescopes but did not tell us how that is evidence for the current model that we use. I can see a planet with a telescope. What does not tell me? Why and how?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, nothng but insults on your part. The fact that you refuse to answer questions but keep talking as to how some won't understand doesn't help your case. And in fact makes me further believe you don't know what you're talking about. While I surely don't claim to know everything, I have learned that you keep talking about evidence as if that's the answer that is how life came about from a few cells, a soupy mass, or maybe some structures that fell upon the earth, chemical reactions made it grow to plants and animals.

No, that was a correction. And did you not see that his post was one long insult? The false claims that he made only applied to himself,

And yes, I do know what I am talking about. I refuse to help those that will not honestly engage in a discussion.. When you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence you free me from the burden of proof of supplying any. Especially after i offered to go over the concept of evidence with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes but where is the "evidence" that plant life and animal life came from the same stem or different stems? Pardon me if I do not speak in your educated terminology, but hopefully you understand the question. Please show evidence. Thank you.

What good would that do? You know that Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution. You just do not know why. And it really is not that hard to understand why.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is probably because you are afraid and cannot honestly look at the evidence. You keep telling us that you do not understand the concept of evidence, but then you run away from offers to help you to understand.

By the way, do you think that you could justify your claim about you know that there is evidence for planetary motion. You mentioned telescopes but did not tell us how that is evidence for the current model that we use. I can see a planet with a telescope. What does not tell me? Why and how?

Sappy the Clown knows the evidence for planetary motion.

 

[YoursTrue]

I gave my compassion in trying to help educate them to no avail. There is a poster that hadn't heard of punctuated equilibrium until this thread and now they post as if they are the leading world expert on the subject. That sort of thing and some of the other nonsense tends to limit my compassion out quite a bit.

It's not a matter of trying to educate some persons. I have been looking at what is considered evidence of evolution because I am interested, along with the commentaries here and from scientists. Here's what I see especially regarding humans. There are skeletons that resemble human skulls, but far enough from it to determine these fossils were not from homo sapiens. Yet the theory is that these particuilar ones evolved to become homo sapiens. As said, there is no proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

What good would that do? You know that Lucy is strong evidence for human evolution. You just do not know why. And it really is not that hard to understand why.

I am going to answer you as I more or less did Dan. I have been looking at what is considered evidence of evolution because I am interested, along with the commentaries here and from scientists. Here's what I see especially regarding humans. There are skeletons that resemble human skulls, but far enough from it to determine these fossils were not of homo sapiens. Yet the theory is that these particular ones evolved to become homo sapiens. As said, there is no proof.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's not a matter of trying to educate some persons. I have been looking at what is considered evidence of evolution because I am interested, along with the commentaries here and from scientists. Here's what I see especially regarding humans. There are skeletons that resemble human skulls, but far enough from it to determine these fossils were not from homo sapiens. Yet the theory is that these particuilar ones evolved to become homo sapiens. As said, there is no proof.

Why is that not "proof"? Do you know what a strawman is? You seem to have a strawman version of evolution in your head. The fossils may not agree with your imagination, but they do agree with the theory. Therefor like it or not they are be definition "real evidence" for the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am going to answer you as I more or less did Dan. I have been looking at what is considered evidence of evolution because I am interested, along with the commentaries here and from scientists. Here's what I see especially regarding humans. There are skeletons that resemble human skulls, but far enough from it to determine these fossils were not of homo sapiens. Yet the theory is that these particular ones evolved to become homo sapiens. As said, there is no proof.

That is only ignorant opinion on your part. i need to remind you that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's not a matter of trying to educate some persons. I have been looking at what is considered evidence of evolution because I am interested, along with the commentaries here and from scientists. Here's what I see especially regarding humans. There are skeletons that resemble human skulls, but far enough from it to determine these fossils were not from homo sapiens. Yet the theory is that these particuilar ones evolved to become homo sapiens. As said, there is no proof.

There is no proof for anything involving science, except the math.

You ever gotten a static shock? Do you know why? There is an explanation that follows the evidence, but there is no proof that rules out every potential or imagined possibility. It could be tiny little angels that bite us with sparks when we get a static shock. No evidence for that though.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sappy the Clown knows the evidence for planetary motion.

Perhaps. I am not big on viewing the sky at night with telescopes, just not my thing. But I can figure from the lunar eclipses and change of seasons that these bodies rotate. I read about them and truly I believe what I read in terms of planetary motion. The earth rotates I believe (no, I haven't proved it) that the earth is slightly tilted, as if said to be on an axis. I find it fascinating and frankly, don't think these things just 'happened' by forces without intelligence behind them. I hope that explains what I now think or believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am going to answer you as I more or less did Dan. I have been looking at what is considered evidence of evolution because I am interested, along with the commentaries here and from scientists. Here's what I see especially regarding humans. There are skeletons that resemble human skulls, but far enough from it to determine these fossils were not of homo sapiens. Yet the theory is that these particular ones evolved to become homo sapiens. As said, there is no proof.

200 plus years of evidence support the theory of evolution. We have no reason to conclude that humans would be exempt from evolution. We have evidence in those fossils and much more that says we have evolved.

You like proof. Do you have proof that God didn't create using evolution? It's going to have to be an answer that eliminates all other possible and imagined answers.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps. I am not big on viewing the sky at night with telescopes, just not my thing. But I can figure from the lunar eclipses and change of seasons that these bodies rotate. I read about them and truly I believe what I read in terms of planetary motion. The earth rotates I believe (no, I haven't proved it) that the earth is slightly tilted, as if said to be on an axis. I find it fascinating and frankly, don't think these things just 'happened' by forces without intelligence behind them. I hope that explains what I now think or believe.

You are accepting planetary movement and position based on evidence. No one has proof for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Perhaps. I am not big on viewing the sky at night with telescopes, just not my thing. But I can figure from the lunar eclipses and change of seasons that these bodies rotate. I read about them and truly I believe what I read in terms of planetary motion. The earth rotates I believe (no, I haven't proved it) that the earth is slightly tilted, as if said to be on an axis. I find it fascinating and frankly, don't think these things just 'happened' by forces without intelligence behind them. I hope that explains what I now think or believe.

If you can figure out how those bodies rotate then you can tell us. How does the change in the seasons show that we rotate around the Sun?

I think that you are willing to accept the claims of scientist when it comes to science that does not threaten your personal religious beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is only ignorant opinion on y9ur part. i need to remind you that you do not understand the concept of evidence.

Of course you are not willing to explain the theory that "Lucy" types evolved to be -- eventually -- homo sapiens. Brains got bigger, etc. OK, at this point yes, it's a joke to say that. So, unignorant opinion is that "Lucy" preceded and grew more or less (evolved) to be what? homo sapien? I'm sure you will say yes, definitely, without doubt, Lucy preceded and grew to be bigger and -- more intelligent.

 

[YoursTrue]

You are accepting planetary movement and position based on evidence. No one has proof for it.

It seems relevant moreso than Lucy growing to be homo sapien.