Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

You really should not say that since you have no clue. When you claim "speculation" you are putting the burden of proof upon yourself and as you have admitted you do not really know enough yet. That makes your claim unjustified and likely to be a falsehood.

Again, the article you pointed to is what is showing that the picture there is an artist's rendering.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First is the theory, right? Because humans are said to share 98-99% DNA with chimps and bonobos, does that mean that humans evolved from an ancestor of the ape family somewhere? What it affirms is that the DNA structure is close. Except for, of course, the 1-2% that separates humans from the African apes.

You failed right from the start. It does not matter if the theory is right or wrong. You don't get to judge that. The topic is evidence. I have to warn you that this again is not honest behavior on your part.

The facts are that the theory of evolution is a testable theory.

The observations support the theory.

By definition it is then scientific evidence for the theory.

That is all. If you can't admit such an obvious fact and have to make up bogus excuses it is clear that you do not want to learn.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, the article you pointed to is what is showing that the picture there is an artist's rendering.

So what? You keep making claims that are non sequiturs.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone - back to the article from Scientific American. "... that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars...although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways." ("that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference.")

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone - back to the article from Scientific American. "... that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars...although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways." ("that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference.")

No, we cannot go over the article until you know what you are doing. No grasping at straws allowed. You can do better than this, I hope.

Why it is evidence for the theory of evolution has been explained to you. There is no "yeah but"s. If you cannot admit the obvious we cannot go on. Creationists often have a massive honesty problem when it comes to evidence. They hate to admit the obvious.

 

[YoursTrue]

You failed right from the start. It does not matter if the theory is right or wrong. You don't get to judge that. The topic is evidence. I have to warn you that this again is not honest behavior on your part.

The facts are that the theory of evolution is a testable theory.

The observations support the theory.

By definition it is then scientific evidence for the theory.

That is all. If you can't admit such an obvious fact and have to make up bogus excuses it is clear that you do not want to learn.

I am looking at the articles you presented to demonstrate, explain, or prove evolution. What I see is the claim (and I am not presently doubting it) that there is DNA evidence showing there is similar DNA in humans and what is said to be the closest (apparently) living relative-animal, the chimpanzee or bonobo. I am surprised you cannot admit that as a basic truth, so far. And yes, I appreciate the fact that you tried to show the idea that there is a common ancestor way back in the evolutionary ladder in the wikipedia article. Nothing is for sure there, though.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, we cannot go over the article until you know what you are doing. No grasping at straws allowed. You can do better than this, I hope.

Why it is evidence for the theory of evolution has been explained to you. There is no "yeah but"s. If you cannot admit the obvious we cannot go on. Creationists often have a massive honesty problem when it comes to evidence. They hate to admit the obvious.

The obvious that you have shown me is that there are close genetic similarities in humans and the greater apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, we cannot go over the article until you know what you are doing. No grasping at straws allowed. You can do better than this, I hope.

Why it is evidence for the theory of evolution has been explained to you. There is no "yeah but"s. If you cannot admit the obvious we cannot go on. Creationists often have a massive honesty problem when it comes to evidence. They hate to admit the obvious.

So you want me to accept what you and others say without questioning. That is what I see from our discussion, sadly enough. BECAUSE -- the article you presented says,
"that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars...although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways." And because I don't believe in evolution in the sense you do, you refuse to even acknowledge what the article says. OK.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am looking at the articles you presented to demonstrate, explain, or prove evolution. What I see is the claim (and I am not presently doubting it) that there is DNA evidence showing there is similar DNA in humans and what is said to be the closest (apparently) living relative-animal, the chimpanzee or bonobo. I am surprised you cannot admit that as a basic truth, so far. And yes, I appreciate the fact that you tried to show the idea that there is a common ancestor way back in the evolutionary ladder in the wikipedia article. Nothing is for sure there, though.

The problem is that you will not let yourself understand the concept of evidence. This is a major problem for you. The topic of the thread is about evidence and you won't let yourself understand the basics.

Once again you only need to answer two questions. Nothing more. Anything else is deflection and an attempt to spread falsehoods.

Is the concept a testable concept? Yes or no? There are no other acceptable answers. And I explained one test already of the theory of evolution for you.

The second question is "Does this observation support the theory". Once again the only answers are yes or no. And the evidence clearly is what the the theory predicts therefore it supports the theory..

When you can get over this difficulty we can move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you want me to accept what you and others say without questioning. That is what I see from our discussion, sadly enough. BECAUSE -- the article you presented says,
"that tiny portion of unshared DNA makes a world of difference: it gives us, for instance, our bipedal stance and the ability to plan missions to Mars...although the sum total of our genetic differences is small, the individual differences pervade the genome, affecting each of our chromosomes in numerous ways." And because I don't believe in evolution in the sense you do, you refuse to even acknowledge what the article says. OK.

No, if you have a valid question that is fine. But for this at least there is no question. And please quit grasping at straws, You know better than that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The obvious that you have shown me is that there are close genetic similarities in humans and the greater apes.

Okay, now like it or not that is evidence for the theory of evolution.

Can you at least say that?

 

[YoursTrue]

No, we cannot go over the article until you know what you are doing. No grasping at straws allowed. You can do better than this, I hope.

Why it is evidence for the theory of evolution has been explained to you. There is no "yeah but"s. If you cannot admit the obvious we cannot go on. Creationists often have a massive honesty problem when it comes to evidence. They hate to admit the obvious.

Here is more from the article in wikipedia:
"Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, though no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Toumaï is indeed a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus whose thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominins (notably Homo erectus), and where the brow ridge morphology of Sahelanthropus differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominins and extant humans."
So the theory is that maybe Sahelanthropus is a "direct human ancestor," (maybe) and of course that would entail the idea or theory that humans EVOLVED through a further series of formations to become the present human structure.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, now like it or not that is evidence for the theory of evolution.

Can you at least say that?

No, because I do not agree with the theory that life and life forms came about by themselves. And I also do not think the sun came about by itself as being so hot, or that gravity came about by itself. What I can agree with so far unless proven wrong, is that there is evidence showing that humans and apes of the greater kind have 98-99% shared DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is more from the article in wikipedia:
"Sahelanthropus may represent a common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, though no consensus has been reached yet by the scientific community. The original placement of this species as a human ancestor but not a chimpanzee ancestor would complicate the picture of human phylogeny. In particular, if Toumaï is indeed a direct human ancestor, then its facial features bring into doubt the status of Australopithecus whose thickened brow ridges were reported to be similar to those of some later fossil hominins (notably Homo erectus), and where the brow ridge morphology of Sahelanthropus differs from that observed in all australopithecines, most fossil hominins and extant humans."
So the theory is that maybe Sahelanthropus is a "direct human ancestor," (maybe) and of course that would entail the idea or theory that humans EVOLVED through a further series of formations to become the present human structure.

Sorry, I thought that you understood evidence. First we go over the concept of evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone -- I was hoping maybe to go on with the Scientific American article, but it is once again getting late beyond my concentration ability. I believe we were programmed (made) to rest, to sleep, and so I am going to sign off for tonight even if not programmed, because I am tired, and look forward to future discussions. If possible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, because I do not agree with the theory that life and life forms came about by themselves. And I also do not think the sun came about by itself as being so hot, or that gravity came about by itself. What I can agree with so far unless proven wrong, is that there is evidence showing that humans and apes of the greater kind have 98-99% shared DNA.

It does not matter whether you agree or not. That has nothing to do with it. Why is this so hard to understand for you? Whether something is evidence for a concept or not has nothing to do with your personal beliefs about that concept. You only keep confirming that you do not understand the concept of evidence. And if one does not understand evidence then one cannot properly participate in a scientific discussion. All that one can do is to make errors and have no way of correcting those errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone -- I was hoping maybe to go on with the Scientific American article, but it is once again getting late beyond my concentration ability. I believe we were programmed (made) to rest, to sleep, and so I am going to sign off for tonight even if not programmed, because I am tired, and look forward to future discussions. If possible.

No problem. No judgement against you for needing sleep. We all do. Let your brain mull over this overnight.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, I thought that you understood evidence. First we go over the concept of evidence.

OK, later. Thanks. Although I will tell you that I wouldn't like to be on a jury because I may have a problem believing the production of what is called evidence or proof, even if surmised.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does not matter whether you agree or not. That has nothing to do with it. Why is this so hard to understand for you? Whether something is evidence for a concept or not has nothing to do with your personal beliefs about that concept. You only keep confirming that you do not understand the concept of evidence. And if one does not understand evidence then one cannot properly participate in a scientific discussion. All that one can do is to make errors and have no way of correcting those errors.

Again -- and it is getting late for me -- the only evidence I see is that there are DNA markers that are similar in organisms. Good night for now.

 

[YoursTrue]

No problem. No judgement against you for needing sleep. We all do. Let your brain mull over this overnight.

I will mull over it a little bit, as I have been lately anyway. And of course then we have the so-called immortal jellyfish, haha, maybe it doesn't die so some say. But anyway -- it may sleep. You think? OK, good night, it's been a pleasure speaking with you. Good night finally. I hope.