Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

I understand but I was listening to doctors talk about Lynch syndrome and they were talking about imperfect genes. Which makes
so let me hear your opinion instead of railing against the idea of the improbability of humans, birds, fish, evolving somewhere else in the universe. You're making yourself more and more ridiculous.

The problem is that there is no demonstrable "improbability". That sort of foolish and rather ignorant argument all but begs for what you call railing. And please, don't lie. You are the one looking ridiculous. Did you not imply that you would at least try to be honest in your approach to this topic? You can do better than this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go back to scientific evidence. Which is after all in the title of this thread. I can find quite a few sites that will tell you something on this order:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

So whenever we are presented evidence we need to ask two questions and two questions only. First, is the concept testable. In the case of the theory of evolution the answer is yes. There are many ways to test it and I gave you one. That seems to be understood. So the only question to ask is "does this observation support the theory of evolution?" I gave you one clear example where you tried to deny that DNA evidence was not evidence for evolution. But you could not show it.

Here is another example, a very early example of a fossil find that is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution:

Archaeopteryx has both dinosaur and bird features and some of its bird featrues are poorly developed. Making it a clear transitional form. It supports the theory of evolution. It is evidence for the theory of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem is that there is no demonstrable "improbability". That sort of foolish and rather ignorant argument all but begs for what you call railing. And please, don't lie. You are the one looking ridiculous. Did you not imply that you would at least try to be honest in your approach to this topic? You can do better than this.

I can, I suppose in a certain imagined scenario, perhaps in a probability of that imagined scenario, not question the assurance of your probabilities. And that, my friend, would make me a liar. So again, regarding evolution, what is your estimate of the chance that life somewhere else in the universe would evolve or did evolve to the kind of life we have here, on this earth? And that is the crux of the whole matter. Nevertheless, from time to time I will look into more of what is deemed to be life by means of evolution. And, of course, that would involve abiogenesis, a necessary vital factor in terms of life having evolved here.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's go back to scientific evidence. Which is after all in the title of this thread. I can find quite a few sites that will tell you something on this order:

"Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis."

So whenever we are presented evidence we need to ask two questions and two questions only. First, is the concept testable. In the case of the theory of evolution the answer is yes. There are many ways to test it and I gave you one. That seems to be understood. So the only question to ask is "does this observation support the theory of evolution?" I gave you one clear example where you tried to deny that DNA evidence was not evidence for evolution. But you could not show it.

Here is another example, a very early example of a fossil find that is scientific evidence for the theory of evolution:

Archaeopteryx has both dinosaur and bird features and some of its bird featrues are poorly developed. Making it a clear transitional form. It supports the theory of evolution. It is evidence for the theory of evolution.

It does? How so? Now the question of flying penguins. They have wings but can't fly like swsllows. They can use their wings, however, to navigate in water very well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can, I suppose in a certain imagined scenario, perhaps in a probability of that imagined scenario, not question the assurance of your probabilities. And that, my friend, would make me a liar. So again, regarding evolution, what is your estimate of the chance that life somewhere else in the universe would evolve or did evolve to the kind of life we have here, on this earth? And that is the crux of the whole matter. Nevertheless, from time to time I will look into more of what is deemed to be life by means of evolution. And, of course, that would involve abiogenesis, a necessary vital factor in terms of life having evolved here.

This makes no sense at all. Are you pretending just because you can make up scenarios that have nothing to do with science in your head that there is a chance that evolution is wrong? That is not how reality works.

And the odds that life evolved somewhere else in the universe is probably on the area of 1. With billions of stars in each galaxy and billions of galaxies even with the slimmest of odds intelligent life almost certainly exists somewhere.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does? How so? Now the question of flying penguins. They have wings but can't fly like swsllows. They can use their wings, however, to navigate in water very well.

So what? I don't know why you are so reluctant to admit to obvious evidence. It tells us that you cannot honestly approach this topic.

Tell me, why are you so afraid of evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

This makes no sense at all. Are you pretending just because you can make up scenarios that have nothing to do with science in your head that there is a chance that evolution is wrong? That is not how reality works.

And the odds that life evolved somewhere else in the universe is probably on the area of 1. With billions of stars in each galaxy and billions of galaxies even with the slimmest of odds intelligent life almost certainly exists somewhere.

"almost certainly." That statement is almost certainly equivalent to penguins being a transitional form to a smaller bird, perhaps, with big wings so it can fly in midair. Or, perhaps one believing in evolution as a certainty may believe almost certainly that the penguin was a stopping point with the form staying that way because it is almost certain that it was convenient for the penguin to be like that. So you believe that it is almost certain humans, fish, leopards, gorillas, trees, exist by means of evolution in another area of the universe?

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? I don't know why you are so reluctant to admit to obvious evidence. It tells us that you cannot honestly approach this topic.

Tell me, why are you so afraid of evidence?

There IS no evidence. Go back to the penguin again. For evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"almost certainly." That statement is almost certainly equivalent to penguins being a transitional form to a smaller bird, perhaps, with big wings so it can fly in midair. Or, perhaps one believing in evolution as a certainty may believe almost certainly that the penguin was a stopping point with the form staying that way because it is almost certain that it was convenient for the penguin to be like that. So you believe that it is almost certain humans, fish, leopards, gorillas, trees, exist by means of evolution in another area of the universe?

Seriously? You can't approach this honestly?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There IS no evidence. Go back to the penguin again. For evidence.

Now you have lost all credibility and have entered into the realm of openly lying. Evidence was defined for you. You accepted that definition.

Tell me, why does evidence scare you so much that you lose the ability to be be honest?

Let me give you a bit of reassurance. The fact that you are an ape. The fact that Adam and Eve is a myth, does not refute Christianity. In fact it might be its savior.

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously? You can't approach this honestly?

I seriously can't follow you in that the gaps in the evidence and the surmises that follow a bone fragment do not add up to me as evolution of the micro or macro kind. And I did enjoy reading how dna can

Now you have lost all credibility and have entered into the realm of openly lying. Evidence was defined for you. You accepted that definition.

Tell me, why does evidence scare you so much that you lose the ability to be be honest?

Let me give you a bit of reassurance. The fact that you are an ape. The fact that Adam and Eve is a myth, does not refute Christianity. In fact it might be its savior.

Here's another bit of information I found about dna. Perhaps you'd like to comment on it.
From the wikipedia article about ancient dna:
"Ancient DNA (aDNA) is DNA isolated from ancient specimens. Due to degradation processes (including cross-linking, deamination and fragmentation) ancient DNA is of more degraded in comparison with contemporary genetic material. Even under the best preservation conditions, there is an upper boundary of 0.4–1.5 million years for a sample to contain sufficient DNA for sequencing technologies. Genetic material has been recovered from paleo/archaeological and historical skeletal material, mummified tissues, archival collections of non-frozen medical specimens, preserved plant remains, ice and from permafrost cores, marine and lake sediments and excavation dirt."
So I'd appreciate your input about the sentence from the article I put in bold.

 

[YoursTrue]

About the ancient DNA article and the link: Ancient DNA - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

I seriously can't follow you in that the gaps in the evidence and the surmises that follow a bone fragment do not add up to me as evolution of the micro or macro kind. And I did enjoy reading how dna can

Here's another bit of information I found about dna. Perhaps you'd like to comment on it.
From the wikipedia article about ancient dna:
"Ancient DNA (aDNA) is DNA isolated from ancient specimens. Due to degradation processes (including cross-linking, deamination and fragmentation) ancient DNA is of more degraded in comparison with contemporary genetic material. Even under the best preservation conditions, there is an upper boundary of 0.4–1.5 million years for a sample to contain sufficient DNA for sequencing technologies. Genetic material has been recovered from paleo/archaeological and historical skeletal material, mummified tissues, archival collections of non-frozen medical specimens, preserved plant remains, ice and from permafrost cores, marine and lake sediments and excavation dirt."
So I'd appreciate your input about the sentence from the article I put in bold.

Why do you continue to grasp at straws? Or can you not follow a simple discussion? Ancient DNA has not been a subject of discussion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

About the ancient DNA article and the link: Ancient DNA - Wikipedia

Once again, ancient DNA has not been a topic of discussion.

I asked you a question and you have dodged it. Why does evidence scare you so much?

 

[YoursTrue]

Seriously? You can't approach this honestly?

How honest would you say this is?
"In the three decades since DNA emerged as a forensic tool, courts have rarely been skeptical about its power. When the technique of identifying people by their genes was invented, it seemed like just the thing the justice system had always been waiting for: Bare, scientific fact that could circumvent the problems of human perception, motivation, and bias."
The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing

 

[YoursTrue]

Once again, ancient DNA has not been a topic of discussion.

I asked you a question and you have dodged it. Why does evidence scare you so much?

What question was that? Maybe I missed it.

 

[YoursTrue]

So what? I don't know why you are so reluctant to admit to obvious evidence. It tells us that you cannot honestly approach this topic.

Tell me, why are you so afraid of evidence?

I guess you did not see the connection between artifacts with vestiges of feathers that are supposedly dinosaurs and flying birds. So again, how about penguins? They have wings but cannot fly midair. Does that mean they don't have the natural selection to move on to flying birds and evolved from the dinosaur with beginnings of feathers? I am guessing here -- you will say yes. But I do have more questions.
By the way, the first article you presented, the Scientific American article, was somewhat understandable until the graph with dna sequence. Would you like to go over that with me? I'd be happy to go over it with you so you can explain what it means to me. OK?

 

[YoursTrue]

Subduction Zone, how honest would you say the following excerpt is? (I'm beginning to think it is possible you don't really want to discuss these important points as they hinge in reference to the theory of evolution. I hope you can help with placing the following.)
"Scientists are still exploring the circumstances and ease with which DNA can travel. Many of our cells and fluids — skin, saliva, sweat, and mucus — routinely find their way into our environment. If conditions are favorable, our genes can wind up places we’ve never been. After Silicon Valley millionaire Raveesh Kumra was killed in his 7,000-foot mansion in November 2012, police discovered the DNA of Lukis Anderson, a 26-year-old homeless man, on his fingernails. But hospital records indicated that Anderson was unconscious in a hospital bed while Kumra asphyxiated nine miles away."

 

[Subduction Zone]

How honest would you say this is?
"In the three decades since DNA emerged as a forensic tool, courts have rarely been skeptical about its power. When the technique of identifying people by their genes was invented, it seemed like just the thing the justice system had always been waiting for: Bare, scientific fact that could circumvent the problems of human perception, motivation, and bias."
The Surprisingly Imperfect Science of DNA Testing

I would say that it is clear that you can't be honest.

Why is that? Did you or did you not imply that you would be honest? Please quit bringing up red herring and articles that you cannot understand. They do not help you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I would say that it is clear that you can't be honest.

Why is that? Did you or did you not imply that you would be honest? Please quit bringing up red herring and articles that you cannot understand. They do not help you.

I notice that you refuse to explain or discuss the references. In relation to evolution.