Evidence For And Against Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

While scientists and philosophers may speculate, there is simply not one iota of proof that there is a link that evolved, came from, turned into humans from chimpanzees, bonobos and/or gorillas.

Humans didn't evolve from chimps, bonobos or gorilla's.

Instead, we share ancestors with them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Being close does not mean that 'we,' as the human race, came about as a result of pure, unminded, evolution. It means that there are agents that are similar.

Agents that are similar? No idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

While scientists and philosophers may speculate, there is simply not one iota of proof that there is a link that evolved, came from, turned into humans from chimpanzees, bonobos and/or gorillas.

Straw man arguments always fail as this one is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That gophers run into holes is not theory. It's fact. While sounding simple, there's a difference between fact and theory.

Observation. Gophers run into holes. Theory. Explains the observation and forms a basis for predictions. Sure. What is your point here?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That gophers run into holes is not theory. It's fact. While sounding simple, there's a difference between fact and theory.

You are still demanding absurd amounts of evidence for something you will just continue to deny with each new piece of evidence.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Being close does not mean that 'we,' as the human race, came about as a result of pure, unminded, evolution. It means that there are agents that are similar.

This takes us directly to the point I've been trying to make to you about degrees of relatedness between you and your human ancestors for the last 5+ posts now.
The point you have continually avoided addressing at all costs. Nobody said anything about "pure, unminded evolution." The point is about how we can analyze degrees of relatedness between creatures that live on our planet.


If we use your logic from this post, then degrees of relatedness that we can clearly see after examining the DNA between you and your mother, you and your cousins, you and your great-great-grandfather, etc. means absolutely nothing and is all just a fluke. In your world, you do not share 50% of your DNA with each of your parents, and 25% of your DNA with your siblings, and less with your cousins, and less with your great-great-grandfather, though you are all still related. We could never tell if you share more DNA with your mother than your cousin because it really wouldn't mean anything at all. No, it's all just a fluke to you and DNA is not inherited at all! All it means is that there are "agents that are similiar" (whatever that means). The problem is, this is not the world we find ourselves in, which makes that a demonstrably false view.

What this post shows is that you have a very fundamental misunderstanding of biology, never mind of evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh, and by the way, I don't dismiss the fact that dna exists, or that combinations and quantities can be similar or differ. Just like I don't discount the fact that vaccines can be produced.

No, you just apparently deny the fact that genetic material (DNA) is heritable. That is a demonstrably false claim.

I don't know what you mean by "combinations and quantities can be similar or different." Can you elaborate?


Are you now abandoning the claim that opposable thumbs are evidence for some creator God?

 

[SkepticThinker]

That gophers run into holes is not theory. It's fact. While sounding simple, there's a difference between fact and theory.

Yes. Evolution is a biological fact. We know it happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation that best describes that fact, given the available evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. Evolution is a biological fact. We know it happens. The theory of evolution is the explanation that best describes that fact, given the available evidence.

You can think so. Others can think so. I don't agree that the available evidence proves evolution as set forth by -- true believers in evolution rather than any creative intelligent superior process. But anyway... at this point, so be it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you just apparently deny the fact that genetic material (DNA) is heritable. That is a demonstrably false claim.

I don't know what you mean by "combinations and quantities can be similar or different." Can you elaborate?


Are you now abandoning the claim that opposable thumbs are evidence for some creator God?

I never said that dna material is not heritable. I believe it is, otherwise inherited defects wouldn't happen, for one thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, you just apparently deny the fact that genetic material (DNA) is heritable. That is a demonstrably false claim.

I don't know what you mean by "combinations and quantities can be similar or different." Can you elaborate?


Are you now abandoning the claim that opposable thumbs are evidence for some creator God?

I'm agreeing with Isaac Newton's perception of the thumb as evidence of God. As far as combinations and quantities which can be similar or different, I am talking about the fact that there are similar dna factors but not in the same quantity from bonobos to humans. And that little difference may mean all the differencej in the world as factors of capabilities. I leave it at that for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can think so. Others can think so. I don't agree that the available evidence proves evolution as set forth by -- true believers in evolution rather than any creative intelligent superior process. But anyway... at this point, so be it.

But then it is all but certain that you do not understand the concept of evidence and what the evidence is.

Tell me, there is no scientific evidence at all, no reliable evidence at all, for creationism. Why do you believe in it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm agreeing with Isaac Newton's perception of the thumb as evidence of God. As far as combinations and quantities which can be similar or different, I am talking about the fact that there are similar dna factors but not in the same quantity from bonobos to humans. And that little difference may mean all the differencej in the world as factors of capabilities. I leave it at that for now.

Why cite Newton as an authority? His knowledge about biology was nil. It was even worse than his knowledge of chemistry and you should know how embarrassing that was for him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You can think so. Others can think so. I don't agree that the available evidence proves evolution as set forth by -- true believers in evolution rather than any creative intelligent superior process. But anyway... at this point, so be it.

The available evidence does not prove evolution. It supports evolution. I do not believe in evolution. I accept the theory as the best explanation for the evidence. I believe in God based on faith.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm agreeing with Isaac Newton's perception of the thumb as evidence of God. As far as combinations and quantities which can be similar or different, I am talking about the fact that there are similar dna factors but not in the same quantity from bonobos to humans. And that little difference may mean all the differencej in the world as factors of capabilities. I leave it at that for now.

His perception is just his subjective view that cannot be supported by the evidence. There are many perceptions and experiences that speak to me of God and I have my own position on belief. But neither is objective evidence that I can use to convince someone of God's existence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why cite Newton as an authority? His knowledge about biology was nil. It was even worse than his knowledge of chemistry and you should know how embarrassing that was for him.

Name dropping?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never said that dna material is not heritable. I believe it is, otherwise inherited defects wouldn't happen, for one thing.

You do not need to believe it. You can accept it based on reason and evidence. DNA has been established as the molecule of heredity based on all the supporting evidence.

Inherited traits (positive or negative) do not require the belief of anyone in order for them to exist and occur.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can think so.

No, he is correct.

Evolution is a biological fact.
Life factually changes over time/generations. Every newborn comes with mutations which it passes on to its own off spring. These mutations accumulate and potentially affect the phenotype.

Species also factually share common ancestors. This a genetic fact.

The theory of evolution, is the explanatory model that explains HOW this happens. It models the process by which this occurs. That it occurs - is a fact

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I never said that dna material is not heritable. I believe it is, otherwise inherited defects wouldn't happen, for one thing.

Otherwise evolution wouldn't happen either. ;-)

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can think so. Others can think so.

It's a demonstrable fact, whether you "think so" or not.
Sorry to tell you.

I don't agree that the available evidence proves evolution as set forth by -- true believers in evolution rather than any creative intelligent superior process. But anyway... at this point, so be it.

Evolution is the backbone of biology. Do you not accept biology either?


Honestly, I'm not sure you recognize what evidence is when you see it. I mean, I don't see your position as coming from a place of evidential support. And that's while you demand mountains of evidential support for scientific theories that have already met their burden of proof.