Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Well since you don't want to provide details on how flagella or humans evolve it is hard to say if the situation is comparable.

i really don't need to since this was your claim. And there is a reason that I will not. There is a question that you repeatedly dodge and duck that would help you to understand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It wins only according to your own personal and arbitrary rules.

If someone finds something like a computer in an other planet, I would argue that it was caused by an intelligent designer, and I wouldn't care if you personally consider my hypothesis "unscientific"....

It is a non dequitur. You creationist love to hide behind the fog of logical fallacies.

Finding a computer on an alien world would lead to the conclusion of an intelligence like our own. It would not throw the finders to the ground in worship of that intelligence as the creator of the universe.

If you creationists discover that computer and the designer species, you will be the first to deny it is the intelligence that created the universe. Creationists are so funny in reality.

 

[leroy]

You still don’t understand that the term “ape” as used in science as a specific species m but rather name of family (or more precisely in biology as superfamily called Hominoidea, which include the branches or families:

• lesser apes or Hylobatidae
• great apes or Hominidae

All Homo species didn’t evolved from great apes. All Homo species are great apes, which include the Homo sapiens.

Think of apes like mammals. All apes are mammals, just as all cats, all dogs, all equines, etc, are all mammals.

All mammals are tetrapods, including humans. All mammals are vertebrae, as are all humans.

The problem here, is that you are thinking apes or great apes as species.

Yes I know, that is why I used the term "ancient apes "

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It wins only according to your own personal and arbitrary rules.

If someone finds something like a computer in an other planet, I would argue that it was caused by an intelligent designer, and I wouldn't care if you personally consider my hypothesis "unscientific"....

It prevails for the same reason that any explanation supported by evidence always prevails over something that clings to evidence only imagined to exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If millions of generations is not enough to evolve a system that requires just a few dozen mutations.... Then forget about the idea that humans evolved from ancient apes in just 500,000 generations.

The evidence supports that evolution and you have failed to show otherwise. Poor comparisons do not support your claim, but they are very amusing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well since you don't want to provide details on how flagella or humans evolve it is hard to say if the situation is comparable.

Since you do not want to support your burden of proof, it hardly matters, even though he is correct.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Which would make sense, right? Why do you think this is relevant to the discussion of evolution?

I have some thoughts on that, but I will keep them to myself.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is what I thought earlier, but @Subduction Zone corrected me.

A rare admission?

 

[leroy]

1. You have a straw man argument here and a double standard.

Not every step need to defined to establish a path and some paths have been established despite your denial.

ID has established nothing except that it is belief only. It can be difficult dismissed as science for that reason.

2. No one is claiming that.

3. What burden of proof is there to reject an unsupported claim?

4. You have a burden of proof here that you cannot, nor will you ever attempt to support, except with your usual dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodge.

1 granted to dont have to explain every single step, but atleast a relevant portion of the steps would be nice to have.

2 ok

3 If you want to afirm that the claim is wrong, you have to support your asertion.

4 the claim is that multiple things would have to evolve at the same time in order to have a selective benefit.... Darwinism mechanisms can't account for this, but an intelligent designer can. This is why ID is a better explanation than Darwinism when it comes to the origin of complex stuff like the eye or flagella.

 

[leroy]

It is a non dequitur. You creationist love to hide behind the fog of logical fallacies.

Finding a computer on an alien world would lead to the conclusion of an intelligence like our own. It would not throw the finders to the ground in worship of that intelligence as the creator of the universe.

If you creationists discover that computer and the designer species, you will be the first to deny it is the intelligence that created the universe. Creationists are so funny in reality.

Irrelevant, the point is that there would be objective methods to test if the computer was design (even if we don't know who they are,)...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irrelevant, the point is that there would be objective methods to test if the computer was design (even if we don't know who they are,)...

It is not irrelevant. You are claiming that the existence of the designed from any designer supports claims of design where they is no evidence for design or any objective means to demonstrate design. Your entire argument is founded on logical fallacies and fails.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrelevant, the point is that there would be objective methods to test if the computer was design (even if we don't know who they are,)...

that is because we understand design when we see it and can test for it. ID believers cannot come up with a reasonable test.

By the way, complexity is not evidence of design. In fact what we see in life is excessive complexity arguably evidence against design.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

1 granted to dont have to explain every single step, but atleast a relevant portion of the steps would be nice to have.

2 ok

3 If you want to afirm that the claim is wrong, you have to support your asertion.

4 the claim is that multiple things would have to evolve at the same time in order to have a selective benefit.... Darwinism mechanisms can't account for this, but an intelligent designer can. This is why ID is a better explanation than Darwinism when it comes to the origin of complex stuff like the eye or flagella.

1. Then why go on as if every step is demanded? Disingenuous much?
2.
3. Not unsupported claims based on unverified or imagined premises.
4. Stop claiming it and demonstrate it.

 

[Bear Wild]

YoursTrue keep bringing examples or scenarios that have nothing to do with Evolution.

Doing everything to avoid the reality that evolution is the only supported explanation. One of the classic avoidance techniques.
1. Distract from the subject
2. Find the most complex element in nature and make the claim it is impossible to occur naturally when the explanations just take time to uncover.
3. Make outrageous statements that are pure fantasy and without evidence
4. Quote scriptures when backed in a corner and block the evidence from the mind.
5. Just state "god did it" over and over.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Irrelevant, the point is that there would be objective methods to test if the computer was design (even if we don't know who they are,)...

According to you, your task is simple.

1. Demonstrate design.
2. Demonstrate the designer.
3. Demonstrate that natural systems could not exist without the actions of that designer.
4. Demonstrate the designer is the God of the Bible. Sure. Sure. We have all heard the ID lie that an identity is not a goal of the belief, but not even the ID movement bought that one.

This should all be a piece of cake. No hill for a climber like you.

But then all it ends up being is an illogical attack on science, hoping some dung sticks to the wall long enough to bolster the delusion of a win by default.

 

[Bear Wild]

Yes they do have to do with evolution.

No they do not and only show your lack of understanding of evolution.

 

[Bear Wild]

According to you, your task is simple.

1. Demonstrate design.
2. Demonstrate the designer.
3. Demonstrate that natural systems could not exist without the actions of that designer.
4. Demonstrate the designer is the God of the Bible. Sure. Sure. We have all heard the ID lie that an identity is not a goal of the belief, but not even the ID movement bought that one.

This should all be a piece of cake. No hill for a climber like you.

But then all it ends up being is an illogical attack on science, hoping some dung sticks to the wall long enough to bolster the delusion of a win by default.

Absolutely true and it seems to come from three things.

First the absolute desire (in contrast to reality of life) to believe there is something watching over us as a parent watches over a child. Thus god the ID is often equated with a father figure with the fear of anything that challenges that world view.

Second the inability to understand the sometimes very complex evidence for evolutions thus preferring a simple explanation that requires no further learning.

Third is the profoundly limiting human centric view of the world in which explanations are expected in human methods. We design things thus there must be a designer. Things not human in nature could not create such a wonderous world in this limited view. Thus the belief humans are made in god's image and god is viewed in human characteristics.

 

[Valjean]

In the other hand, Darwinism is not falsifiable, if one shows that a particular path is not viable all you have to do is suggest an other path.... Given that there are trillions and trillions of possible paths it is impossible to show that each individual path is not viable.

If a particular path is shown to be non-viable, and is abandoned, that is falsification. Focusing, then, on another path/ theorem is how science works.
Science investigates various ideas until it finds one that can't be falsified. It then proposes that as a Theory and publishes it for peer review, ie: for other scientists to criticize, test and try to falsify; for other scientists to repeat the research in their own labs and see if they get the same results.

There are not trillion of 'possible' alternative paths. We're lucky if have any at all to investigate.

If you find a step by step path of benefitial random mutations that show how a blind creature evolves eyes, ID would be falsified

But we do have the step-by-step path -- with living examples of each step.

 

[Valjean]

It wins only according to your own personal and arbitrary rules.

If someone finds something like a computer in an other planet, I would argue that it was caused by an intelligent designer, and I wouldn't care if you personally consider my hypothesis "unscientific"....

But we'd all agree with your assessment. Computers don't reproduce with variation. They're designed and manufactured.

Organisms can evolve and become complex because they reproduce with variation. No intentional design is necessary.

 

[YoursTrue]

You really need to ask biologist for help, because you really don’t what is and isn’t Evolution. Or pick up a biology textbook, read, learn and understand.

I am not a biologist, but even I can see that you are wrong.

You also don’t understand that doing any surgery, big or small, isn’t evolution. Unless, you selective breeding, Natural Selection don’t require human invention.

I am not teacher, and I clearly cannot explain anything to you, and clearly you are not willing to learn from your mistakes.

So i am going to a sabbatical on this one, about your transplant scenarios.

so if (and I say if) there is a transmission of DNA as these medical ethicists think there may be, and it is different from the"person," because the ejaculatory parts are not the dna of the recipient, AND it produces a being with better or worse DNA and that continues in transference, would you think that would be "natural selection"?