Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

Subspecies? What are Neanderthals a subspecies of, and how do you know this?

There is still some controversy over the classification of Neanderthals, but some evidence supports that they are a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

There was interbreeding, though the only successful results were from male Neanderthals and H. s. sapiens females.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that Behe's ideas were addressed and shown to be wrong long ago. In the scientific community, the debate is over. It is only among those not aware of the science that the public debate continues.

I believe that his ideas were contested, and that perhaps some of his illustrations were not accepted. But his basic comprehension of the incompatibility of the idea of Darwinian evolution with life and a realistic verifiable testable concept of what is considered as evolution and the stages thereof, is there without contest, insofar as I have seen and read, particularly also from evolutionists themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I believe that his ideas were contested, and that perhaps some of his illustrations were not accepted. But his basic comprehension of the incompatibility of the idea of Darwinian evolution with life and a realistic verifiable testable concept of what is considered as evolution and the stages thereof, is there without contest, insofar as I have seen and read, particularly also from evolutionists themselves.

Behe's ideas were shown to be wrong. The theory of evolution remains as is and uncontested in science. Only details are being argued.

It is not incompatible with life. It is the explanation for the changes in, relationships, and diversity of life on earth. Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[Valjean]

After all that, given the immense size of some of these dinosaurs, they just did not evolve supposedly as they were to have before their extinction. Something was lost.

It's hard to evolve after one's extinction.
The ecosystems most creatures depended on; that they were physically specialized to exploit, were suddenly gone. They did not have the technology humans have to enable them to compensate. They died.
It appears they were under stress even before the Chicxulub incident. They became suddenly extinct after the impact. The degree of effect from various stressors remains hotly debated.
Research and evidence continues to accumulate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
As has been stated, many scientists are arguing about what's true and what's not true. What was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

How is this response of yours relevant to the post you are replying to?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you have any testimony that Ice Giants created the heavens and the earth?

Either way, it's irrelevant to wheter or not the Ice Giants took out the dinosaurs.
Are you capable of sticking to the point that you yourself have raised?

You said:

Something must have taken the dinosaurs out. But how do you know it wasn't God that caused these things?

To wich I responded:

​

The same way we know that it weren't Ice Giants that took them out.

Neither a "carbon dating reset" nore any other stories about Ice Giants is relevant to wheter or not Ice Giants took out the dinosaurs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually, dating methods may alter conventional historical data quite a bit. Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
What was true last year may not be true next year.

Isn't the self-correcting mechanism of science wonderfull?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but just how recent are humans as opposed to Neanderthal humanoid type beings?
Scientific American: "Archaeologists vehemently disagree over the effects changing climate and competition from recently arriving humans had on the Neanderthals' demise." Why do they say "recently arriving humans" vs Neanderthals? Carbon Dating Gets a Reset
See, that was my question, it wasn't about scientists that vehemently disagree with each other. Just how recent are humans, and did they emerge, evolve, from Neanderthals? My main question is: just how recently arrived are humans, particularly in relation to Neanderthals?

Homo Sapiens is some 150.000 to 200.000 years old.
Neanderthal is about the same and like a close cousin

 

[Astrophile]

Yes, God gave them free reign as well as time. He gave Adam and Eve free reign also.

The phrase is actually 'free rein'; it refers to the reins used to guide or check a horse, not to the reign of a king or queen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

By this time I do not trust speculations made by time-setters as if they were absolute

Shocking. A fundamentalist YEC that "doesn't trust scientific dating methods".

, for certain reasons, some of which are that ground shifts, bones are swept away, ridges can form.

Has it occured to you that geologists and paleontologists are like... trained professionals who are aware of this, can recognise where and when such things happened, and keep it into account when doing field work?

They may have reason to speculate

No, YOU Have reason to speculate and assume and force-fit the evidence to suit your personal religious beliefs.

This is projecting on your part. YOU are the one who comes into this while already holding the answers. YOU are the one with the "prefered outcome". YOU are the one with a dogmatic commitment to a worldview. YOU are the one who thinks "keeping the faith" is most important.

YOU are the one who's "doubting" any science for the sole reason that it conflicts with your a priori beliefs.


Scientists have NO incentive to do such things. Au contraire.

When a scientist proves his collegues wrong, he gets prizes and applause.
When you even only cast a bit of doubt on your beliefs, it leads to a faith crisis.

In science, if you turn a field on it its head by showing the core ideas wrong and thus abbandon those ideas, you get a medal.

In religion, the equivalent earns you the title of apostate - one of the biggest sins you could engage in, and likely you'll be socially outcast and shunned by your previous co-believers.

, but there can be mitigating circumstances, as scientists continue investigating and debating.

Science always tries to learn more, yes.
It's a good thing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't trust their conclusions when they disagree with what the Bible says

There you go.

Your sole motivation and reason.
You don't actually have anything on the science. You don't actually have a real reason to "not trust it" or object to it.

Nope. The sole reason you have, is that it conflicts with your a priori religious beliefs, to which you clinge dogmatically.

So indeed, any science that contradicts it, is to be rejected by default.

In other words: when your beliefs aren't matching the evidence of reality, you're just going to assume that the evidence of reality is incorrect.

And with that, you have written yourself out of every science conversation.

Your objections officially don't matter, because they don't exist.

, and for the reasons I mentioned as well, especially when they contradict their own findings.

You mean, your massive strawmen, quote minings and misrepresentations and / or statements of ignorance, which you pretend are valid.

I'm beginning to think you don't think.

Ow, we're thinking alright.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nope, that's not the "bottom layer" of it all. And so what I have found is what those such as Michael Behe and others like him say, if you don't agree with the diehard believers in evolution as popular, it's possible one's career in those sciences is doomed due to political reasons. And I have seen that prejudice here, such as in your above post. (Thank you.)

Behe 's carreer went down the drain because of his dishonesty and involvement in pseudo-science and the fact that he hasn't done any original research nore contributed anything worthy of mention to his field.

Redefining science to be able to include "cdesign proponentsism", with as hilarious side effect that astrology ALSO should qualify as valid science, off course also didn't really help him.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is NO WAY that the first thing (item, unicell, whatever) emerging from whatever is not a complex unit.

And you have determined this, how?

And then over who-knows-how-long it developed more.

Science knows: at least 3.8 billion years.

Let me make one thing clear, if possible, because the subject of evolution is pretty messed up, so it is hard to explain in real-time (reality). By evolutionists themselves. So let me say that inbreeding is obviously possible making observable distinctions. As well as transmittable illnesses, such as Epstein-Barr syndrome. But some may promote the idea that God causes everything. Including deformities. He does not. But like the possibility of test-tube babies and transplants, or growing brains as I see is happening now. It happens, but this is not from God.

Random points without evidence are random and without evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

After all that, given the immense size of some of these dinosaurs, they just did not evolve supposedly as they were to have before their extinction. Something was lost.

Huh?

No idea what you're saying. It smells like some comment that assumes a seriously warped idea of what evolution is though

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I believe that his ideas were contested, and that perhaps some of his illustrations were not accepted. But his basic comprehension of the incompatibility of the idea of Darwinian evolution with life and a realistic verifiable testable concept of what is considered as evolution and the stages thereof, is there without contest, insofar as I have seen and read, particularly also from evolutionists themselves.

"insofar as I have seen and read" - there's your problem.

 

[leroy]

There are others that are equally transparent. One keeps getting asked questions that he never answers, but claims over and over that he has many times. @leroy may not be alone at this level, but he is a strong competitor and one of the best in the free style burden of proof relay for individuals.

Without a doubt he will demure such well-deserved recognition.

Care to provide an example of a question that I haven't answer?

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, getting more accurate dating methods makes previous theories (ideas) false, including dating of history and theories about them.

I didn't say it is a bad thing for science. How you misinterpret. I said that according to these findings, "science" keeps changing the lines.

I see it as science always looking for alternative explanations and being willing to change if those alternatives have the weight of the evidence in their favor.

Yes, it is a process. the truth doesn't come out immediately, nor often easily. But, as we collect more data and it gets increasingly accurate, it narrows down the possibilities, getting closer and closer to the truth.

And, once a possibility is discarded because the evidence goes against it, it tends to stay dead.

THAT is why creationism and ID is dead in science: the issues have been investigated (often a hundred years ago) and the evidence didn't support them.

At no point does science claim to have 'the full truth'. It can, however, find which ideas are false and get rid of them.

 

[Polymath257]

Subspecies? What are Neanderthals a subspecies of, and how do you know this?

The current evidence points to Neanderthals being a subspecies of Homo sapiens. They were a cousin, not an ancestor (except when we interbred).

 

[Polymath257]

You ask an interesting question. Jesus said that one must love God. Thus to love someone, you would have to know Him. Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?” Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

And the question is how you know you got to know God and not an imposter.

 

[Polymath257]

I have studied various religions and the Bible along with the various denominations, and have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God, the God of those such as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus. So as scientists come to their conclusions, pro or con, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one true God, as Jesus said. Only God can bring a person to this conclusion. I do not agree with everyone who professes belief in God, even if sincerely. God is the true Judge, though, not me, of a person's standing with Him. If I find out that God used evolution to create the heavens and the earth, I will agree with that. But so far I do not see that as being true. I don't know if you believe in the Bible at all, so I won't particularly discuss that right now.

So, it is possible to sincerely try to find God and be wrong when you think you found Him (Her, It). How do you didn't happen to you?