Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

Because until you can honestly deal with the concept of evidence there is no chance that you will let yourself learn.

And you are now either openly lying or showing a complete inability to understand the simplest of concepts. This does not reflect well on you.


Tell me, how does the DNA evidence not support the concept? This is your claim you must provide evidence for it. And since creationists do not understand the concept of scientific evidence I sincerely doubt if you can.

All right. What is the concept (of evolution)? Here's a few reasons I ask: one is that I am now looking into how scientists date fossils. (I'll get into that in the future if time permits.) My next question to verify is what DNA did the initial unicell, or two, or three, etc., that kept emerging or multiplying, have?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, surmising is not allowed in the sciences. Once again you make a claim where you put the burden of proof upon yourself. If you cannot justify your claims then it looks as if you have broken the Ninth Commandment. I seriously do not see why creationists think that it is okay to break the Ninth Commandment when attacking evolution. They continually bear false witness against their neighbor. Do you think that there is an escape clause in the Bible for this activity?

LOL, you keep quoting the 9th Commandment when you don't believe in God's word anyway. Have you ever heard of Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee? They are the authors of a book I recently took out of the library called, "Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe." It is very interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All right. What is the concept (of evolution)? Here's a few reasons I ask: one is that I am now looking into how scientists date fossils. (I'll get into that in the future if time permits.) My next question to verify is what DNA did the initial unicell, or two, or three, etc., that kept emerging or multiplying, have?

Evolution is simply the change of frequency of gene alleles in a population over time.

Did that help? Probably not. Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet. From simple single celled organisms to beasts as large as the Blue Whale. It does not say that God does not exist. That is only the interpretation of Bible literalists that can be shown to be wrong on all sorts of levels. It does not even refute the Christian God. If you understood the Adam and Eve myth you would understand that a literal interpretation is bad theology. It paints God as incompetent and unjust.

As to dating fossils that is not that hard to understand. We can get to that later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, you keep quoting the 9th Commandment when you don't believe in God's word anyway. Have you ever heard of Peter D. Ward and Donald Brownlee? They are the authors of a book I recently took out of the library called, "Rare Earth, Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe." It is very interesting.

I don't have to be a believer to be able to follow it, better that you seem to be able to. And that is a sad state of affairs when an atheist is more "Christian" than a Christian. And no, I have never heard of the two, but they may be mistaken. Let me do a search on them and their work. If they argue against abiogenesis the odds are huge that their science is decades out of date.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nope, surmising is not allowed in the sciences. Once again you make a claim where you put the burden of proof upon yourself. If you cannot justify your claims then it looks as if you have broken the Ninth Commandment. I seriously do not see why creationists think that it is okay to break the Ninth Commandment when attacking evolution. They continually bear false witness against their neighbor. Do you think that there is an escape clause in the Bible for this activity?

So why do you think the author of the article in Scientific American which you presented in a link so I could learn about evolution said that "In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive. The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition." (Charles Darwin surmised, she wrote. Was Darwin a scientist?)

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is simply the change of frequency of gene alleles in a population over time.

Did that help? Probably not. Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet. From simple single celled organisms to beasts as large as the Blue Whale. It does not say that God does not exist. That is only the interpretation of Bible literalists that can be shown to be wrong on all sorts of levels. It does not even refute the Christian God. If you understood the Adam and Eve myth you would understand that a literal interpretation is bad theology. It paints God as incompetent and unjust.

As to dating fossils that is not that hard to understand. We can get to that later.

I do not believe the dating sequence of what evolutionists present as the timeline of the appearance of humans on this earth. I also do not believe that God is incompetent and unjust. But, since you mentioned that, would you say evolution is or can be, incompetent and unjust?

 

[Valjean]

So where is the relationship or the common ancestor before the gibbon, orangutan, gorilla, human, and chimpanzee came forth? I mean what is the common ancestor? In the above chart, it looks like humans are placed between the gorilla and chimpanzee.

The common ancestor is at the V intersection between the Chimp-ape lines.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is simply the change of frequency of gene alleles in a population over time.

Did that help? Probably not. Evolution explains the diversity of life on this planet. From simple single celled organisms to beasts as large as the Blue Whale. It does not say that God does not exist. That is only the interpretation of Bible literalists that can be shown to be wrong on all sorts of levels. It does not even refute the Christian God. If you understood the Adam and Eve myth you would understand that a literal interpretation is bad theology. It paints God as incompetent and unjust.

As to dating fossils that is not that hard to understand. We can get to that later.

Going back to this for a moment, as I reread it, you say that evolution is simply the change of frequency of gene alleles in a population over time. What populations are you talking about? Insects? Fishes? Gorillas? Plants? Are these populations that change frequency of gene alleles?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So why do you think the author of the article in Scientific American which you presented in a link so I could learn about evolution said that "In 1871 Charles Darwin surmised that humans were evolutionarily closer to the African apes than to any other species alive. The recent sequencing of the gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo genomes confirms that supposition." (Charles Darwin surmised, she wrote. Was Darwin a scientist?)

At that time Darwin was not yet saying definitively that was how man evolved. He qualified his statement, saying that he might be wrong. That is why he said that he surmised. In a scientific paper surmising is not allowed. Darwin also said that time would tell and if he was correct, once again he could not state it definitively at that time, the evidence would come in that supported that idea. Guess what? We have tons of evidence of man's evolution today. Today there is no doubt. Back in Darwin's time there was plenty and he not only knew it, he admitted it. Something that creationists cannot seem to do. I am sure that a biologist that has studied Darwin could easily point out Darwin's errors to us. Darwin is not a "God" in biology. He was merely a very astute man that first explained how evolution works. That does not mean that everything he said was correct. He only sets us firmly on the right path to find out.

Darwin could not answer many of the answers of the details of evolution at his time. That is no longer the case. When Darwin was not sure he made that clear. Guess what a scientist does when he is not sure of some aspect of his work? He makes it clear. Darwin was a scientist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Going back to this for a moment, as I reread it, you say that evolution is simply the change of frequency of gene alleles in a population over time. What populations are you talking about? Insects? Fishes? Gorillas? Plants? Are these populations that change frequency of gene alleles?

Yes.

 

[YoursTrue]

The common ancestor is at the V intersection between the Chimp-ape lines.

Hmm, it's a little hard to understand, so since you're my coach, perhaps you can help me understand it more. You say the common ancestor is the V intersection between the chimp-ape lines. The chimp-ape lines? You mean the lowest V on the chart?

 

[Valjean]

I do not believe the dating sequence of what evolutionists present as the timeline of the appearance of humans on this earth. I also do not believe that God is incompetent and unjust. But, since you mentioned that, would you say evolution is or can be, incompetent and unjust?

LOL -- evolution's not a moral position, it's just change.
What dating sequence do you believe? Do you have links to the evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not believe the dating sequence of what evolutionists present as the timeline of the appearance of humans on this earth. I also do not believe that God is incompetent and unjust. But, since you mentioned that, would you say evolution is or can be, incompetent and unjust?

If you do not believe that God is incompetent and unjust then you either do not believe the Adam and Eve myth or you do not understand it.

And it does not matter what you believe. When it comes to dating you are as in all matters of science, demonstrably wrong. Whether you let yourself understand or not is up to you.

 

[Valjean]

Going back to this for a moment, as I reread it, you say that evolution is simply the change of frequency of gene alleles in a population over time. What populations are you talking about? Insects? Fishes? Gorillas? Plants? Are these populations that change frequency of gene alleles?

Everything alive! Everything with genes to change! Are you not following this at all? Are you just trolling?
All species are populations. All individuals are part of at least one population.

 

[Skwim]

.


Not to step on Subduction Zone's toes here, but if I may interject:

I do not believe the dating sequence of what evolutionists present as the timeline of the appearance of humans on this earth.

Okay.

I also do not believe that God is incompetent and unjust.

Well, he has admitted to making mistakes. He regretted he made man (Genesis 6:6), and regretted he made Saul King (1 Samuel 15:10-11), both signs of incompetence; and he has certainly been unjust: He supported slavery (many verses). Unless, that is, you feel slavery is just. Do you?

But, since you mentioned that, would you say evolution is or can be, incompetent and unjust?

This is like asking if gravity is or can be smart, or if metabolism is or can be loving. Get it?

.

 

[YoursTrue]

At that time Darwin was not yet saying definitively that was how man evolved. He qualified his statement, saying that he might be wrong. That is why he said that he surmised. In a scientific paper surmising is not allowed. Darwin also said that time would tell and if he was correct, once again he could not state it definitively at that time, the evidence would come in that supported that idea. Guess what? We have tons of evidence of man's evolution today. Today there is no doubt. Back in Darwin's time there was plenty and he not only knew it, he admitted it. Something that creationists cannot seem to do. I am sure that a biologist that has studied Darwin could easily point out Darwin's errors to us. Darwin is not a "God" in biology. He was merely a very astute man that first explained how evolution works. That does not mean that everything he said was correct. He only sets us firmly on the right path to find out.

Darwin could not answer many of the answers of the details of evolution at his time. That is no longer the case. When Darwin was not sure he made that clear. Guess what a scientist does when he is not sure of some aspect of his work? He makes it clear. Darwin was a scientist.

You're correct in that you know I don't believe that life came about without divine origination (or by itself, as a saying might go). The origination of life can be different than evolution. What do you think?

 

[YoursTrue]

Everything alive! Everything with genes to change! Are you not following this at all? Are you just trolling?
All species are populations. All individuals are part of at least one population.

Nope, I'm not trolling. You're quick to make allegations, aren't you. So what is a population? All species?

.


Not to step on Subduction Zone's toes here, but if I may interject:


Okay.


Well, he has admitted to making mistakes. He regretted he made man (Genesis 6:6), and regretted he made Saul King (1 Samuel 15:10-11), both signs of incompetence; and he has certainly been unjust: He supported slavery (many verses). Unless, that is, you feel slavery is just. Do you?


This is like asking if gravity is or can be smart, or if metabolism is or can be loving. Get it?

.

That God said he regretted he made man does not mean he made a mistake. In fact, since free will is involved to a certain extent, that shows God allows things to go on and stepped in for a reason. So since this is a board regarding evolution for or against, if you believe in evolution, I will ask, is death a mistake? If, in fact, you want to discuss slavery that is another topic. But what about evolution? What about the economy? What about war and slavery? What about many, many instances where people are enslaved now, in jobs and situations that are very difficult and making very little money to support themselves adequately. Would you say that is a form of slavery? I would. Did evolution bring the human race to these slave-like conditions?

 

[Skwim]

That God said he regretted he made man does not mean he made a mistake.

Let me ask you, why would you regret having done something if it wasn't a mistake.

regret
verb
us
/rɪˈɡret/
-tt-
to feel sorry or unhappy about something you did or were unable to do:​

mistake
noun
us
/mɪˈsteɪk/
an action or decision that is wrong or produces a result that is not correct or not intended:​

Think god was happy that what he did was wrong?

In fact, since free will is involved to a certain extent, that shows God allows things to go on and stepped in for a reason.

Just as you don't buy into the idea of atheism, I don't buy the idea of free will, which means that any argument based on free will is meaningless to me.

So since this is a board regarding evolution for or against, if you believe in evolution, I will ask, is death a mistake? If, in fact, you want to discuss slavery that is another topic. But what about evolution? What about the economy? What about war and slavery? What about many, many instances where people are enslaved now, in jobs and situations that are very difficult and making very little money to support themselves adequately. Would you say that is a form of slavery? I would. Did evolution bring the human race to these slave-like conditions?

What about stopping all the irrelevant tap dancing and focus on the issue? No need to answer. I know why: you can't. I have you stumped.

.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is such a poorly asked question.

Tell me, why did you not include man in that family?

It was included. So again, aside from the fact that gorillas and chimpanzees share 98-99% of the DNA with humans, what is the common ancestor of all three?

 

[YoursTrue]

Let me ask you, why would you regret having done something if it wasn't a mistake.

regret
verb
us
/rɪˈɡret/
-tt-
to feel sorry or unhappy about something you did or were unable to do:​

mistake
noun
us
/mɪˈsteɪk/
an action or decision that is wrong or produces a result that is not correct or not intended:​

Think god was happy that what he did was wrong?


Just as you don't buy into the idea of atheism, I don't buy the idea of free will, which means that any argument based on free will is meaningless to me.



What about stopping all the irrelevant tap dancing and focus on the issue? No need to answer. I know why: you can't. I have you stumped.

.

Do you believe in evolution?