Does evolution have a purpose?

[TagliatelliMonster]

I read it, but didn't feel the need to respond to every paragraph.

Off course, it makes it harder to stick your head in the sand and ignore it when you have to respond to it.

In any case, you don't get to handwave it away as if all I did was give you a bare assertion, while all the stuff you deliberately cut out of the post is where it is actually explained, meaning that it is anything BUT a bare assertion.

I don't tend to make long posts. I find them harder to read.
There is no need to write an essay

So about 14 sentences to explain how we know that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact, was too much for you to handle?


Bottom line: if you wish to counter the statement that it is a genetic fact, then you're going to have to deal with the points I raised which detail how we know it is a genetic fact. As it stands, the points remain unaddressed and thus continue standing tall. Your bare denial notwithstanding.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can believe everything you read about ToE, but I don't.
I don't have to have a PhD to question the axioms of some people's belief in something that is claimed to have happened billions of years ago, is a proved fact.

I just explained to you in a simple 15 sentences post how we KNOW that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No .. we are talking about billions of years.
We can make some educated guesses, but that is all they are.

If you would actually read the 15-sentence post where I explain how we know that common ancestry is a genetic fact with a speck of attention, then you would understand how it's not the result of a "guess".

It's not more a "guess" then a DNA test is to determine kindship / fatherhood and alike.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

..sorry .. I don't take much notice of random websites.
Perhaps give me a ref. from wikipedia?

"random websites"?!

LOL

 

[muhammad_isa]

The first few had the advantage of being relatively simple to understand, the last a an actual peer reviewed science paper. But if you really want wiki (which is usually reasonable but not always completely accurate or up to date), fine:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia

Yes .. it's all very interesting, but not as interesting as religious knowledge
Not to me.
The knowledge of the universe and its history is an academic discipline that can have many applications.
..yet if it turns people away from G-d, then it is also problematic.
There is definitely something wrong there

You can believe everything that you read. I do not.
It is not always easy to differentiate between what is a proven fact, and what is conjecture.
It just goes to show, that specialisation, and the priviliges it brings in society, can be a difficult test for us.
It is easy to be led astray.

For those people who dismiss theism, believing that mankind somehow knows so much more than their ancestors, is an arrogant claim.
Academic knowledge can be of benefit to us, and also a curse, as is all too apparent in today's world.
It is as if we are choking on our own vomit.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So about 14 sentences to explain how we know that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact, was too much for you to handle?

Sometimes long posts are OK.
..but when the exchanges between posters become a long chain of replies, I break the cycle.
It is not for me.
I prefer conversation and not sprawling dialogue.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I just explained to you in a simple 15 sentences post how we KNOW that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.

Ignoring it won't make it go away.

You "know", and so do all scientists who feel that they think that the evidence proves it.
It may well be right, but how does it help me in ordinary life?
What benefit does it have for me to believe that the majority of scientists believe in their own inerrancy, and are veering towards atheism?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sometimes long posts are OK.
..but when the exchanges between posters become a long chain of replies, I break the cycle.
It is not for me.
I prefer conversation and not sprawling dialogue.

The problem is that you "break the cycle" by being intellectually dishonest.

You quote a single sentence and then reject it out of hand while pretending the sentence wasn't motivated. And you completely cut out, and ignore, the part where it WAS motivated.

That's just incredibly dishonest of you to do.

Bottom line once more: common ancestry of species IS a genetic fact.
And how / why it is a genetic fact, is clearly explained in the part you refuse to read / address / quote / acknowledge.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You "know", and so do all scientists who feel that they think that the evidence proves it.

It does. Just like a DNA test proves that you and your cousin are actual cousins and that you and your sister share biological parents.

It may well be right, but how does it help me in ordinary life?

Moving the goalposts much?
The point of discussion was not how it helps us in ordinary life (even though it does).
The point of discussion was that you were questioning if common ancestry is little more then some "guess".

It isn't. It's a fact. For the reasons mentioned.

What benefit does it have for me to believe that the majority of scientists believe in their own inerrancy, and are veering towards atheism?

And another fallacious / false statement.
Plenty of evolutionary biologists are theists.
No scientist "believes in his/her own inerrancy".

You're trying REALLY hard to prevent yourself from acknowledging simple facts.

Ow well....

Willful ignorance is an ugly thing.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes .. it's all very interesting, but not as interesting as religious knowledge

Religious knowledge? If you mean knowledge about religions, then I guess it's a matter of what you're interested in, if you mean knowledge gained from religion, then that appears to be an oxymoron.

The knowledge of the universe and its history is an academic discipline that can have many applications.
..yet if it turns people away from G-d, then it is also problematic.

I have yet to see the first hint of a reason to think that there is any god (or gods) to turn away from.

There is definitely something wrong there

Such as...?

You can believe everything that you read. I do not.

Neither do I. I like to see evidence and/or reasoning to support what is said.

It is not always easy to differentiate between what is a proven fact, and what is conjecture.

Well that's got to be the false dichotomy of the day. Outside of mathematics and pure logic it's impossible to absolutely prove anything. What we have is confidence gained from evidence. So, something like evolution is 'proven' in the legal sense, in that there is more than enough evidence to consider it to be basically true beyond any reasonable doubt.

For those people who dismiss theism, believing that mankind somehow knows so much more than their ancestors, is an arrogant claim.

We demonstrably do know more than our ancestors. How to make computers and the internet that allows people to instantly publish nonsense about us not knowing more that our ancestors so it can be read around the world, for example.

Academic knowledge can be of benefit to us, and also a curse, as is all too apparent in today's world.

And of course religion and beliefs in endless different gods has brought nothing but good into the world. Oh, wait....

 

[muhammad_isa]

It isn't. It's a fact. For the reasons mentioned..

It's a fact for you, but not for me.
One can come up with different conclusions about evidence.
The conclusions that we come to will vary dependent on our view of the world.
It is most important to have knowledge of a broad range of disciplines in order to have a balanced view.

Plenty of evolutionary biologists are theists..

I don't know about plenty.
ToE is associated with agnostics and atheists, perhaps more than in any other field.
That doesn't surprise me.

Much more than physics, for example, which is more likely the other way round.
Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being cases in point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a fact for you, but not for me.

It's a fact of genetics.
Right now, you are actually saying that you don't "believe" in DNA testing to determine kinship and bloodlines.

One can come up with different conclusions about evidence.

Only if one isn't honest about the evidence.

The conclusions that we come to will vary dependent on our view of the world.

Not if you are honest about the evidence.

It is most important to have knowledge of a broad range of disciplines in order to have a balanced view.

So you might want to have some basic knowledge concerning genetics in order to have a "balanced view" of the implications of genetics.

I gave you the explanation of how we know. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

I don't know about plenty.

Biology is in fact one of the natural sciences that holds the most theistic scientists.

ToE is associated with agnostics and atheists

Only in the minds of evolution denying fundamentalists.
Then again, most of science is associated with "atheists" in their unscientific and anti-science minds.

, perhaps more than in any other field.
That doesn't surprise me.

Me neither.
It's a pretty devastating body of knowledge for people who's entire world view and religion hinges on the a priori faith based belief that some god created humans from scratch.

I can't imagine what it is like to be stuck between a rock and a hard place like that, but I can imagine how it would be difficult and disturbing to crawl out of that superstitious hole.

Much more than physics, for example, which is more likely the other way round.

Physicists are notoriously more agnostic / atheist then any other field in the natural sciences.

Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein being cases in point.

Newton comes from a time where just about everybody and their mothers were theists / creationists. Religion back then was the only game in town.

Einstein was anything but a theist. Don't make me pull up the letter where he complains how people misrepresent him and where he flat out calls abrahamic religion "primitive and childish".

 

[night912]

Plenty of evolutionary biologists are theists.

I don't know about plenty.
ToE is associated with agnostics and atheists, perhaps more than in any other field.
That doesn't surprise me.

Here's something that will surprise you even more. There are more theists living on this planet who accept the ToE than there are atheists who accept that theory.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Only in the minds of evolution denying fundamentalists..

That's nonsense.
Ever since the discovery of natural selection, there has been a growing agnosticism amongst those that explore the ToE.

Newton comes from a time where just about everybody and their mothers were theists / creationists. Religion back then was the only game in town..

Tut .. more nonsense.

 

[night912]

It is most important to have knowledge of a broad range of disciplines in order to have a balanced view.

And that knowledge is worthless if you don't understand how those disciplines are applied to one particular view.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's nonsense.

Except that it isn't.

Ever since the discovery of natural selection, there has been a growing agnosticism amongst those that explore the ToE.

So you claim.
But the fact of the matter is that every poll among scientists shows that proportionally, biology is a branch of science in which the most scientists are theists compared to other branches like chemistry and physics.

With physicists being the least theistic.

None of this however matters.
Once again, you have done your outmost best to only reply to the most irrelevant points while completely ignoring all points that actually mattered and were relevant to the conversation at hand.


For example, no word on the fact that we can use DNA to determine kinship and bloodlines (and thus common ancestry).

Tut .. more nonsense.

No. Demonstrably the case.
Not that it matters though.

Because once again: no "god variables" anywhere to be seen in any of his equations.

Newton was also big on alchemy. In fact, the amount of work he did in physics pales in comparison to the amount of work he did on alchemy.

So what?

He is remembered for his awesome work in physics. Not "thanks" to him being a theist or alchemist. His beliefs concerning both subject are nothing but an irrelevant footnote only mention worthy when it comes to his biography. Utterly meaningless when it comes to his work in physics.

So perhaps you might want to stop with the irrelevant nonsense and actually reply to the points raised that are actually relevant to the conversation at hand?

Not counting on it though.

 

[muhammad_isa]

For example, no word on the fact that we can use DNA to determine kinship and bloodlines (and thus common ancestry)..

You are very argumentative, aren't you.
You seem to think that using the word "fact" somehow strengthens your views.
Who is claiming that DNA can't be used to determine kinship?
Nobody as far as I know.

However, you wish to extrapolate a few billion years into the past and claim that it is identical

I dismiss such claims as unknowable.
Furthermore, it makes no difference to me one way or the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are very argumentative, aren't you.

Well, this IS a debate forum.

You seem to think that using the word "fact" somehow strengthens your views.

Well, it does. Facts are stronger then opinions.
And DNA testing to determine kinship is a thing that deals with factual information and draws factual conclusions.

Factual enough for courts to determine that some kid is your actual kid and force you to pay alimentation, for example. Factual enough for courts to assign inheritances.

Who is claiming that DNA can't be used to determine kinship?

You. You denied that it is a genetic fact that species share ancestry. When I explained it, you denied it further trying to brush it off as "just some belief" or "guess".

Either we can test for kinship and ancestry or we can't.

However, you wish to extrapolate a few billion years into the past and claim that it is identical

See? Here you are again.
There is no extrapolation. If you actually bothered to read and acknowledge / understand those 15 sentences a few posts back in which I explained to you how and why we are able to do this, you would understand that there is no "extrapolation" going on.

It's the exact underlying principles.
You inherit genetic markers from your parents that your cousins don't have as they aren't off spring of your parents. So when we test a random person and that person has those markers, that's how we know that that person is actually your sibling.

Whenever we compare DNA from multiple individuals, we know that those who share markers, share an ancestor. And when we map this out by sequences entire genomes, then we get a phylogenetic tree. A tree. Exactly what we should get if evolution occurred and species share ancestry.

We find this in active DNA, in inactive DNA, when tracking single genes, when tracking specific DNA sequences, when tracking specific markers like ERV's,.... we always get the same tree.

A family tree.

This is how we can determine kinship and common ancestry. There is no such thing as a "species barrier" like creationists like to lie about.

I dismiss such claims as unknowable.

...for no other reason then it being in conflict with your a priori faith based religious beliefs.
That, and clearly good ol' willful ignorance of the subject.

Furthermore, it makes no difference to me one way or the other.

Apparently it does... why else would you go so out of your way to avoid acknowledging simple points, handwave points away with no explanation whatsoever, pretend that there is a link between biology and "atheism", etc etc etc?

If it makes no difference to you, then why resist these basic evolution 101 points so strongly?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Apparently it does... why else would you go so out of your way to avoid acknowledging simple points, handwave points away with no explanation whatsoever, pretend that there is a link between biology and "atheism", etc etc etc?

If it makes no difference to you, then why resist these basic evolution 101 points so strongly?

I believe that satan is real. I believe that satan wants to sow doubt.

Anything that sows doubt in my mind about the Greatness of G-d, I am very wary of.
You saying that examining DNA allows you to say for a fact that something happened billions of years ago immediately rings alarm bells.
How does it help me to know what happened billions of years ago, in any case?

I can assure you, that it does not. I have no wish to be G-d.
I have no wish to know "How G-d created the Universe"
I am quite satisfied that He did, and I know that I am going to die.
..and that is very soon ..not in billions of years time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that satan is real. I believe that satan wants to sow doubt.[

Anything that sows doubt in my mind about the Greatness of G-d, I am very wary of.

Do you think "satan" genetically manipulates creatures to make it look as if they share ancestry?
Do you think "satan" puts fossils in the ground to make it line up with phylogenetic trees and geographic distribution of species?

You saying that examining DNA allows you to say for a fact that something happened billions of years ago immediately rings alarm bells.

1. the split between humans and chimps happened some 7 million yeas ago, not billions
2. your incredulity and willful ignorance, is not an argument against the facts of genetics

I explained several times already how we can determine kinship and bloodlines using only DNA.
Not once did you actually respond to those explanations. You're avoiding it like the plague.

How does it help me to know what happened billions of years ago, in any case?

How does it help you to ignore evidence and dismiss facts?

I can assure you, that it does not. I have no wish to be G-d.
I have no wish to know "How G-d created the Universe"

Then why insist on dismissing the facts of genetics?
Why else would you do that if you don't care how god created the universe?

I am quite satisfied that He did, and I know that I am going to die.
..and that is very soon ..not in billions of years time.

More irrelevant dodging.

You really are starting to look / sound like this at the moment: