Evidence For And Against Evolution

[YoursTrue]

That would be w very foolish, in fact stupid conclusion. What excuse do you have for that?

in a trial if there are mountains of evidence for one side and none for the other one always goes for the side with mountains of evidence. You would let a murderer go free because you don't know what he had for breakfast last Tuesday.

Now there's a bit of an exaggeration. And you're right -- I wouldn't vote to convict someone on trial for murder who is facing the death penalty. I worked for lawyers. (I know they -- well, some of them -- lie. Make up stories. Along with lying.)
Now here's a sad part of the news:
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — More than 1 million people in East Africa are affected by flooding after higher than normal rainfall, an aid group said Friday. East African flooding affects millions
One million people. Not to mention the animals facing dire circumstances. Why worry about messing up the environment while we argue over evolution? Maybe it is -- maybe it isn't...

 

[YoursTrue]

It sounds like you are confusing evolution of languages with evolutionary biology. They are not one and the same.

Evolution (referring to evolutionary biology) is study of change, where any inheritable traits are passed on future generations of descendants. The working process involved genetics.

Languages do change over times, as well as being influenced by languages outside of it.

What I mean by the later about “being influenced by” other languages. Take for instance, modern English for example, evolved from Middle English (c 1100 to c 1500), but Middle English were influenced by others languages such Norman (French) from Old French dialect from Normandy, some Old Norse because of Danish and Norwegian Vikings have settled in parts of England before the Norman Conquest (1066), and from Latin, which was universal language of Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. Loanwords, are words borrowed from other (foreign) languages, that have become everyday words to modern English.

A lot of our scientific vocabulary make use of Latin and Greek for scientific terminology.

But I am digressing.

My point is that languages are not biological and not genetically inherited. We don’t genetically speak English. English isn’t encoded in our genes or in our DNA.

Language is something that we have learned and trained to use, like from our parents and in schools.

The evolution of languages and evolution in biology are not the same. We can be taught languages, but languages cannot be inherited via our chromosomes, our genes or our DNA.

I already know that. Cultural evolution or linguistic evolution is not the same as changing from one form of being by genetics to another. No matter how you look at it (twist it), chimpanzees and birds, etc., do not transmit their historical backgrounds to others. Only humans do. Quite different from the communication methods of chimpanzees, bonobos, and fish and birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

If you tell a falsehood you cannot demand an answer.

Try again and see if you can post without breaking the Ninth Commandment I will answer your questions.

Yes, I'll try again: you can't answer what is the falsehood you claim I made. You don't believe in God anyway, so that shouldn't be in your repertoire as to threatening me with divine retribution. In other words, you can't answer.

 

[YoursTrue]

It sounds like you are confusing evolution of languages with evolutionary biology. They are not one and the same.

Evolution (referring to evolutionary biology) is study of change, where any inheritable traits are passed on future generations of descendants. The working process involved genetics.

Languages do change over times, as well as being influenced by languages outside of it.

What I mean by the later about “being influenced by” other languages. Take for instance, modern English for example, evolved from Middle English (c 1100 to c 1500), but Middle English were influenced by others languages such Norman (French) from Old French dialect from Normandy, some Old Norse because of Danish and Norwegian Vikings have settled in parts of England before the Norman Conquest (1066), and from Latin, which was universal language of Roman Catholic Church in Western Europe. Loanwords, are words borrowed from other (foreign) languages, that have become everyday words to modern English.

A lot of our scientific vocabulary make use of Latin and Greek for scientific terminology.

But I am digressing.

My point is that languages are not biological and not genetically inherited. We don’t genetically speak English. English isn’t encoded in our genes or in our DNA.

Language is something that we have learned and trained to use, like from our parents and in schools.

The evolution of languages and evolution in biology are not the same. We can be taught languages, but languages cannot be inherited via our chromosomes, our genes or our DNA.

And furthermore, humans are the only beings that study their environment and transmit their history both in speech and writing. I don't see any other population of "organisms" besides humans working on this. Quite a macro or micro leap/transition from whatever you say was prior to the human organism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now there's a bit of an exaggeration. And you're right -- I wouldn't vote to convict someone on trial for murder who is facing the death penalty. I worked for lawyers. (I know they -- well, some of them -- lie. Make up stories. Along with lying.)
Now here's a sad part of the news:
NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) — More than 1 million people in East Africa are affected by flooding after higher than normal rainfall, an aid group said Friday. East African flooding affects millions
One million people. Not to mention the animals facing dire circumstances. Why worry about messing up the environment while we argue over evolution? Maybe it is -- maybe it isn't...

So how is that supposed to help your myth?

Once again you need to learn what is and what is not evidence.

And if you want to understand biology one has to understand evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I'll try again: you can't answer what is the falsehood you claim I made. You don't believe in God anyway, so that shouldn't be in your repertoire as to threatening me with divine retribution. In other words, you can't answer.

You used the word "imagined". Not only was that a falsehood, it was a foolish one to make. It puts the burden of proof upon you. You would need to prove that his drawings were "imagined" and the sources that you have used are no help for you there.

When you make claims about others you need to be able to support them. Even though what Haeckel did wrong has been explained to you by more than one person you still do not seem to understand what he did wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And furthermore, humans are the only beings that study their environment and transmit their history both in speech and writing. I don't see any other population of "organisms" besides humans working on this. Quite a macro or micro leap/transition from whatever you say was prior to the human organism.

No, that is only a cultural leap since for for over 95% of our history man did not have the ability to write either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I'll try again: you can't answer what is the falsehood you claim I made. You don't believe in God anyway, so that shouldn't be in your repertoire as to threatening me with divine retribution. In other words, you can't answer.

Guess what? Most people, regardless of religious belief, do not like dishonesty. And those that accept the sciences are more honest thancreationists. You have rules that your own religion says that you are supposed to follow. It is a little sad when someone has to point out your failures.

A note on the Ninth Commandment. It is not a ban on lying. One could make up all sorts of lies about oneself and one would be fine. It is not even a ban on saying false things about someone else, if one is saying good things.

It is a ban on bearing "false witness against your neighbor". In other words saying false things about your neighbor. If you state something false against your neighbor, even if you believe it to be true, you have broken that Commandment. In other words your Bible warns you not to make claims against someone else lightly.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. I don't think so.

Based on what?

2. It doesn't make sense.

False. It makes perfect sense when you consider all of the available facts.

3. It is incredible, meaning you'd have to figure, I guess, that plants and animals and yes, water and clouds, etc., just came about by themselves. That includes gravity. So you believe it. I don't.

What are you talking about? Evolution explains precisely how plants and animals came about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with water, clouds and gravity. Where did you get that idea from?

 

[YoursTrue]

Guess what? Most people, regardless of religious belief, do not like dishonesty. And those that accept the sciences are more honest thancreationists. You have rules that your own religion says that you are supposed to follow. It is a little sad when someone has to point out your failures.

A note on the Ninth Commandment. It is not a ban on lying. One could make up all sorts of lies about oneself and one would be fine. It is not even a ban on saying false things about someone else, if one is saying good things.

It is a ban on bearing "false witness against your neighbor". In other words saying false things about your neighbor. If you state something false against your neighbor, even if you believe it to be true, you have broken that Commandment. In other words your Bible warns you not to make claims against someone else lightly.

Do you remember "Java man"?

Based on what?


False. It makes perfect sense when you consider all of the available facts.


What are you talking about? Evolution explains precisely how plants and animals came about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with water, clouds and gravity. Where did you get that idea from?

Do you remember about the Piltdown man information? It was heralded as true for decades. Scientists believed it, didn't they? And then ...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Do you remember about the Piltdown man information? It was heralded as true for decades. Scientists believed it, didn't they? And then ...

Actually, Piltdown Man was always a bit of a mystery, and there was a lot of debate about if it even fit in the fossil record, much less where it fit.
SOURCE: Bones of Contention

It was also exposed as a fraud through carbon dating and comparisons to genuine examples of fossils. So, if you believe Piltdown Man was fake, then you must accept the credibility of carbon dating techniques and the veracity of the fossil record we have for humans that shows humans evolved from earlier apes.

Also, Piltdown Man has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I wrote or asked in that post. Can you keep on one topic at a time?

 

[Polymath257]

Do you remember "Java man"?

What about it? We have many other examples of the species now. The original was lost in the war. So what?

Do you remember about the Piltdown man information? It was heralded as true for decades. Scientists believed it, didn't they? And then ...

Not quite the situation. Piltdown man was not allowed to be investigated by the scientific community. And almost immediately, there was skepticism because it didn't 'fit in' with the rest of the evidence that had been gathered. Finally, it was scientists studying the evolution of humans that uncovered the hoax.

 

[YoursTrue]

Based on what?


False. It makes perfect sense when you consider all of the available facts.


What are you talking about? Evolution explains precisely how plants and animals came about, and it has absolutely nothing to do with water, clouds and gravity. Where did you get that idea from?

They (scientists) are guessing when it comes to many, m.a.n.y things. That is clear to me. When you can prove beyond doubt that life began with one cell just like that out of where no one really 'knows' as far as evolutionists are concerned, and then they multiplied by "natural selection" into plants and animals then we'll have a discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Actually, Piltdown Man was always a bit of a mystery, and there was a lot of debate about if it even fit in the fossil record, much less where it fit.

It was also exposed as a fraud through carbon dating and comparisons to genuine examples of fossils. So, if you believe Piltdown Man was fake, then you must accept the credibility of carbon dating techniques and the veracity of the fossil record we have for humans that shows humans evolved from earlier apes.

Also, Piltdown Man has absolutely nothing to do with anything that I wrote or asked in that post. Can you keep on one topic at a time?

It depends. Piltdown man was an expressed fake, unless, of course, you believe the fragments discovered were really of some type of humanoid being. Or perhaps your jury is out about Piltdown Man, heralded as true for decades, by, of course, educated scientists teaching that to the gullible. Same as Haeckel's recaptulation theory.

 

[Darkstorn]

They (scientists) are guessing when it comes to many, m.a.n.y things.

No, i think it's more of a case of you guessing, and then mistaking those guesses as truth. You're literally guessing that, and it's wrong.

That is clear to me.

It's only clear to everyone else that you really, really don't know what you're talking about.

When you can prove beyond doubt that life began with one cell just like that out of where no one really 'knows' as far as evolutionists are concerned, and then they multiplied by "natural selection" into plants and animals then we'll have a discussion.

Evolution is not about life beginning, for that you need to look for other things like abiogenesis. Evolution takes life "in medias res" and works with what it has. Origin has no bearing; It even leaves room for your god as the origin. You can think of it as an ongoing process, for which we have *ridiculous* amounts of evidence, but we DON'T have ridiculous amounts of evidence regarding the ORIGIN of life.

Evolution is NOT about the origin though; It's about what's happening NOW.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

They (scientists) are guessing when it comes to many, m.a.n.y things. That is clear to me.

Please show one such guess and I bet I can explain how it was reasonable to come to that conclusion.

When you can prove beyond doubt

Hold it right there, flower. That's not how science works. Nothing is ever "proven beyond doubt" and that's an unreasonable standard to hold. You don't hold that standard for the theory of gravity or germ theory, either.

that life began with one cell just like that out of where no one really 'knows' as far as evolutionists are concerned, and then they multiplied by "natural selection" into plants and animals then we'll have a discussion.

What would be the point in having a discussion about something once it's already "proven beyond all doubt"?

Tell you what, how about you "prove beyond doubt" that you are not Satan in disguise. Until then, I will just tell everyone I know that you are. But once you've proven that you're not, we can have a discussion about it.

Sound reasonable?

 

[Darkstorn]

It depends. Piltdown man was an expressed fake, unless, of course, you believe the fragments discovered were really of some type of humanoid being. Or perhaps your jury is out about Piltdown Man, heralded as true for decades, by, of course, educated scientists teaching that to the gullible. Same as Haeckel's recaptulation theory.

This is just false propaganda: Scientists were not allowed to study the Piltdown man closely for a quite long time. The very moment they first studied it, it was exposed as a hoax.

It was NON-scientists perpetuating the Piltdown man hoax, including your fellow Christians in an attempt to cast doubt for evolution. When it was exposed, all of you change tune to "it was the scientists who believed it!"

Scientists expressed doubt about the Piltdown man since the beginning.

Sad.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It depends. Piltdown man was an expressed fake, unless, of course, you believe the fragments discovered were really of some type of humanoid being. Or perhaps your jury is out about Piltdown Man, heralded as true for decades, by, of course, educated scientists teaching that to the gullible. Same as Haeckel's recaptulation theory.

Again, I just explained to you that many, many scientists DIDN'T accept Piltdown Man, or considered it - at BEST - a mysterious anomaly. And it was only discovered to BE a fake because of carbon dating and comparison to REAL examples of human ancestor fossils.

So, do you accept carbon dating and the existence of genuine fossils demonstrating humans' lineage from ape-like ancestors?

Because, if not, how can you possibly claim Piltdown Man was fake?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you remember "Java man"?

Yes, I do. And I can tell that you are not only using a lying source, you are using a moronic lying source.

Please tell us about Java man

Do you remember about the Piltdown man information? It was heralded as true for decades. Scientists believed it, didn't they? And then ...

No, some believed it. But you are now trying to use an argument that refutes Christianity. You are not debating wisely.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It depends. Piltdown man was an expressed fake, unless, of course, you believe the fragments discovered were really of some type of humanoid being. Or perhaps your jury is out about Piltdown Man, heralded as true for decades, by, of course, educated scientists teaching that to the gullible. Same as Haeckel's recaptulation theory.

A fake used to support an idea, where others are fooled, is not evidence against that idea. There have been countless fakes for Christianity. By your poor logic Christianity has been refuted by those accepted fakes countless times. Also Haeckel was merely wrong. He was never key to evolution. But like it or not his drawings still are evidence for evolution. They are just not evidence for his particular version of evolution.