Evidence For And Against Evolution

[TagliatelliMonster]

OK, maybe that's true. And I'm not going to go over what he meant by that right now because he hasn't told me, or you. Maybe he said something about it in print. (hmmm.) We'll go over more about this. Meantime, are you sure he meant race means species?

IT DOESN'T MATTER

It has no relevancy to the accuracy and validity of explanatory models of modern biology

Sheesh, give it a rest already.
Bring a real argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Science, said shunyadragon, cannot be proved. I understand that evolution is a theory, and is used to describe how evolution works. OTOH, explanations change.

Yes, it's called progress and learning.
Do you think making progress and learning is bad?

When Einstein correct newtonian physics, did he do a bad thing?

As far as proof goes, however, if I put a blue dye in a clear bottle of water, the water may turn blue. To me, that's PROOF that the blue dye had an effect on the water.

That's not a theory or hypothesis. That's just describing what happens. Not why or how it happens.

It's the why/how that can't be proven. The explanations.

What "experiments" have been done in reference to evolution? Please do tell, if you will kindly. Thank you.

Every single breeding program in the world.

If the theory concerning how the evolutionary process works is wrong, it shouldn't be possible to breed for certain specific traits.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually I didn't say evolution should be rejected on those grounds...but it went with the theory. Which, now I wonder if in Haeckel's idea, would the human embryo have gone through the black race first in the womb? Too bad he's not here to hypothesize about that. Or what he thought about that.

You're being completely ridiculous.
Welcome in the 21st century. Biology made a bit of progress since Haeckel with his opinions was alive.

 

[YoursTrue]

Things live and then die.
During that life span, they might reproduce and thereby spread their genes.
Those who don't live long enough for whatever reason will not be spreading their genes and those lineages die out.

The "struggle for life" is the concept of creatures surviving long enough to breed. In general. By whatever means they manage to stay alive.



Theories in science are never considered "proven".
Theories can only be supported or disproven.
"proven" implies an absolute certainty and thereby excludes the posibility that future discoveries might force us to alter or even completely replace out theories.

Since we can only take into account the evidence we currently have at our disposal, we can not rule out that there is other data out there that might paint a different picture.


So yes, science doesn't deal in "proof" when it comes to explanatory models of reality, only "evidence" or "disproof".

This is like science 101 and frankly it's embarassing that you don't know this while feeling knowledgeable enough to argue against extremely well-established and well-supported theories like evolution....

Likely it is that you don't believe what the Bible says. But interestingly enough (although some people who claim to believe in the Bible disagree), the Bible says that God made man in His image, and offered him (not animals) the opportunity to live forever. Only mankind did He offer this opportunity to.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it's called progress and learning.
Do you think making progress and learning is bad?

When Einstein correct newtonian physics, did he do a bad thing?



That's not a theory or hypothesis. That's just describing what happens. Not why or how it happens.

It's the why/how that can't be proven. The explanations.




Every single breeding program in the world.

If the theory concerning how the evolutionary process works is wrong, it shouldn't be possible to breed for certain specific traits.

I can't speak for Einstein or Newton, and I'm still having trouble figuring out how Einstein figured that e=mc2. I know what it represents. What it means is another story. And while Einstein was considered a genius, Edison was instrumental in developing the phonograph and incandescent bulbs among other useful inventions. So while the earth is bent on ruining itself via the hands of humans (homo sapiens) say many environmentalists and scientists, people would rather imagine (?) than be practical to save themselves. And guess what? Many who study and believe evolution as the fact believe that destructiveness is set in the genes of mankind. And you know what? When Adam bit into the fruit Eve gave him, he knew he was destroying himself. Inherited? So it seems, from Adam.
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
That was given before Adam sinned and lost the right to everlasting life. I know Einstein didn't believe what the Bible said, but it makes sense to me better than pointless evolution as the factor of life as recognized, after, of course (as it is said) abiogenesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're being completely ridiculous.
Welcome in the 21st century. Biology made a bit of progress since Haeckel with his opinions was alive.

But -- racism continues among some. Meantime, scientists are on the road to figuring humans are in the same genre, biologically, or however you want to call it. Race-group--whatever. As I said, after studying this along with you all, I will avoid if I can classifying myself on questionnaires as to what "race" I belong to. Since humans are humans and not divided into different races. Characteristics can obviously be changed by genetics. That is clear (to me). But it was thought and likely still is, that some races are just not as smart as others. In fact, interestingly enough, a study done in Israel lately about genetically maneuvered offspring do not necessary come out better than regularly produced ones.

 

[YoursTrue]

You're being completely ridiculous.
Welcome in the 21st century. Biology made a bit of progress since Haeckel with his opinions was alive.

OK then, tell me if you know. What type of homo sapien is/was the first homo sapien to happen (evolve from -- whoever he/they are said to evolve from)? And by type I mean what color was his skin??
So far virtually almost every supposed predecessor look like gorillas, facially and physically in their color. So -- which type of skin color in a man (Denisovan or Neanderthal, etc.) came first, do you think, or do evolutionists say? It's a reasonable question for someone like myself, who does not really know as much as you do about the process of evolution in regard to humans of the homo sapien kind.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, it's called progress and learning.
Do you think making progress and learning is bad?

When Einstein correct newtonian physics, did he do a bad thing?



That's not a theory or hypothesis. That's just describing what happens. Not why or how it happens.

It's the why/how that can't be proven. The explanations.




Every single breeding program in the world.

If the theory concerning how the evolutionary process works is wrong, it shouldn't be possible to breed for certain specific traits.

The idea is, though, there cannot be any experiments between whoever (whatever) came before humans of the homo sapien kind and how these 'branches,' shall we say, developed. That's a problem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Likely it is that you don't believe what the Bible says. But interestingly enough (although some people who claim to believe in the Bible disagree), the Bible says that God made man in His image, and offered him (not animals) the opportunity to live forever. Only mankind did He offer this opportunity to.

Not even you believe everything that the Bible says. And it does not really matter. Parts of the Bible have been shown to be wrong, especially if one reads it literally. For example the Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. I hope that you are not a Flat Earther. There was no Flood of Noah, That was known before evolution was figured out. Do you kill witches? Do you stone disobedient children? Only a psychopath could believe and try to live according to what the Bible teaches. One must pick and choose the parts that one believes.

Our belief or non-belief in the Bible is not an issue here. We are discussing reality not religion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The idea is, though, there cannot be any experiments between whoever (whatever) came before humans of the homo sapien kind and how these 'branches,' shall we say, developed. That's a problem.

Correction, you do not know how to do any experiments. You should never say something cannot be done when you do not understand the sciences at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correction, you do not know how to do any experiments. You should never say something cannot be done when you do not understand the sciences at all.

OK, so can interbreeding be done now as it was surmised to have happened between (um..) Neanderthals, is it, and homo sapiens? I mean as an experiment or to prove it really happened, as said (surmised) they produced infertile offspring?

 

[YoursTrue]

Not even you believe everything that the Bible says. And it does not really matter. Parts of the Bible have been shown to be wrong, especially if one reads it literally. For example the Bible only describes the Earth as flat in word and deed. I hope that you are not a Flat Earther. There was no Flood of Noah, That was known before evolution was figured out. Do you kill witches? Do you stone disobedient children? Only a psychopath could believe and try to live according to what the Bible teaches. One must pick and choose the parts that one believes.

Our belief or non-belief in the Bible is not an issue here. We are discussing reality not religion.

Of course belief in the Bible is an issue here. If it were not, we'd agree on some basic issues. After all, remember what your predecessor said (A. Einstein) about the Bible. He agrees with you. Therefore, in your reality, God does not enter the picture. But let's go back to your first few statements there. Before I even examine your contentions as to the unreality of the Bible, would you say even "round-earthers" or evolutionists sans belief in God might use the expression, "four corners of the earth," yet knowing that the earth is round? (round-ish, that is. I'm not sure if it's a perfect circle, whatever that may be, but from the looks of things, it sure looks like a circular circumferance.)
The expression "four corners" at Revelation 7:1 is obviously symbolic. If you think a person, anyone, should take it literally, well, best to you, sir. Here is what it says (related to John in a vision): "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Again, if you think I think or anyone thinks it is to be understood literally, as I said -- (in other words) -- have a nice day, sir.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so can interbreeding be done now as it was surmised to have happened between (um..) Neanderthals, is it, and homo sapiens? I mean as an experiment or to prove it really happened, as said (surmised) they produced infertile offspring?

Genetics tell us that they interbred and comparing genomes was an experiment since the outcome was unknown at first.

 

[YoursTrue]

Genetics tell us that they interbred and comparing genomes was an experiment since the outcome was unknown at first.

Genetics shows similarity in genes. Since the Bible says man was made from the soil I wonder how many components of soil does the human body contain? So I looked it up.
One gram of soil: a microbial biochemical gene library. - PubMed - NCBI
It says soil has lots and lots of genes.
One gram of soil: a microbial biochemical gene library.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course belief in the Bible is an issue here. If it were not, we'd agree on some basic issues. After all, remember what your predecessor said (A. Einstein) about the Bible. He agrees with you. Therefore, in your reality, God does not enter the picture. But let's go back to your first few statements there. Before I even examine your contentions as to the unreality of the Bible, would you say even "round-earthers" or evolutionists sans belief in God might use the expression, "four corners of the earth," yet knowing that the earth is round? (round-ish, that is. I'm not sure if it's a perfect circle, whatever that may be, but from the looks of things, it sure looks like a circular circumferance.)
The expression "four corners" at Revelation 7:1 is obviously symbolic. If you think a person, anyone, should take it literally, well, best to you, sir. Here is what it says (related to John in a vision): "And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree." Again, if you think I think or anyone thinks it is to be understood literally, as I said -- (in other words) -- have a nice day, sir.

I was thinking more Old Testament, though there is the time Jesus went with Satan and was shown the whole Earth from a height. That only makes sense on a flat Earth. It does not even work as a "vision". And the same was done in the OT by someone that climbed a tall tree. And there are other verses as well. The writers of the Old Testament almost surely thought that the Earth was flat. If you read the Noah's Ark myth it is rather clear that it describes a flat Earth under a solid "firmament". It only shows that interpreting the Bible literally will always cause you trouble.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Genetics shows similarity in genes. Since the Bible says man was made from the soil I wonder how many components of soil does the human body contain? So I looked it up.
One gram of soil: a microbial biochemical gene library. - PubMed - NCBI
It says soil has lots and lots of genes.
One gram of soil: a microbial biochemical gene library.

No, it doesn't. Please don't conflate "components of soil" with similarity in genes. This is an amazingly poor argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so can interbreeding be done now as it was surmised to have happened between (um..) Neanderthals, is it, and homo sapiens? I mean as an experiment or to prove it really happened, as said (surmised) they produced infertile offspring?

Surmise is not a proper term to use either. You should be asking how they knew that the breeding was one way only.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it doesn't. Please don't conflate "components of soil" with similarity in genes. This is an amazingly poor argument.

Why? Does not the human body contain the elements of soil?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was thinking more Old Testament, though there is the time Jesus went with Satan and was shown the whole Earth from a height. That only makes sense on a flat Earth. It does not even work as a "vision". And the same was done in the OT by someone that climbed a tall tree. And there are other verses as well. The writers of the Old Testament almost surely thought that the Earth was flat. If you read the Noah's Ark myth it is rather clear that it describes a flat Earth under a solid "firmament". It only shows that interpreting the Bible literally will always cause you trouble.

I didn't think of a solid firmament but of a vapor filled mass surrounding the earth. How it happened, or how it appeared to be, I don't know. But in terms of flood from above and below the earth, and pushing up of mountains, it makes sense to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Does not the human body contain the elements of soil?

What? Why wouldn't it? Think about it. Where do you think the elements that make up your body come from?

This is elementary school level knowledge.