Evolution My ToE

[dad]

My claim is that all of the evidence supports that the physical constants are the same everywhere.

No. The bible does not support that nor does ancient history. That is also evidence, whether or not you like it. No scientific evidence supports the idea that constants even exist in the whole universe. Constancy is assumed. Very circular.

I can and have supported that with evidence.

Link to the post.

You on the other hand believe in a fishbowl universe.

The opposite is true since the fishbowl represents the space where mankind or his probes have been. That would not be all the universe.

Not me. You believe in a God that lies.

That is a lie.

 

[dad]

The bible is evidence that humans created a god to take care of them and not all humans and that's all.

If men could do all the observed healings and miracles, and see into the future, and etc you might have a point.

There are many things that that are not seen that can be demonstrated including electricity. They have a way of being tested.

Yes, physical forces not observable with the human eye can be tested. Likewise, spiritual things not seen by science can be tested!

Spirits, unicorns, gods and goddesses alike cannot be demonstrated

To whom? If you saw an angel how would you demonstrate that to me?

. Yes people in general want to believe there is a being outside of this world to take care of them but than does not make it real only desired.

You cannot prove that most men of all ages accept the supernatural only because of 'wanting to believe'.

Evolution has evidence

Zero actually. None whatsoever. Nada. Zip.
What has evidence is that creatures have the ability to adapt and evolve. That has nothing to do with you being related to a flatworm. (TOE).

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. The bible does not support that nor does ancient history. That is also evidence, whether or not you like it. No scientific evidence supports the idea that constants even exist in the whole universe. Constancy is assumed. Very circular.
Link to the post.


The opposite is true since the fishbowl represents the space where mankind or his probes have been. That would not be all the universe.

That is a lie.

Please dad, that is not the way it works. Ask politely and I will post it again. The time to complain was when it was posted.

And no, I did not lie. The fact is that your version of God is a lying God. That is why most Christians do not take the myths of Genesis literally. They cannot believe in a lying God. But you refuse to discuss the concept of evidence. Probably because you know that you are wrong.

Lastly you are the one that wants to put Earth in a fishbowl with its own special rules.

And no dad, constancy is not assumed. You actually need to support that claim. Constancy is the conclusion from the Evidence.

 

[nPeace]

No, you have an incorrect definition of "verified". In the sciences evidence is verified when it is found repeatedly. I don't think that you understand how science works. You want "proof" and there is none in the sciences. Heck there is no "proof" in that sense anywhere except for in mathematics. And it is still a hypothesis because the evidence is there, and it is "verified" and it is "objective" but it does not quite meet the standards of being a theory as of yet. Even theories are only provisionally true. For example gravity is taken to be provisionally true. But if you accept gravity as a fact then by the same standards you should be accepting the theory of evolution as a fact. It is only the very beginnings and some of the niggling details that are still being worked on. The concept as a whole is extremely well supported.

Evidence is verified when it is found repeatedly?
I don't think that is a very clear statement, since we find evidence every day for something.
So what do you mean... could you please explain what you mean by that statement?

Are you saying that in science, there is no need to demonstrate that something is true?
I feel that cannot be what you are saying, yet you are saying I am wrong. So I am not sure. What am I wrong about?

The theory of gravity is a model, in the same way the theory of evolution is. Neither are facts.
Were you referring to the law of gravity, which is different to a theory? There is no law of evolution.
Both theories are accepted by the scientific community as the current best explanation of observed facts.
These facts are independent of any theory, and are observed by all. Interpreted differently, however. Interpretations are not facts, but you can believe them.
Others are free to not believe them.

Similar to the interpretation of facts indicating an intelligent designer.
These are not proven, but they are believed. One is free to disbelieve them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidence is verified when it is found repeatedly?
I don't think that is a very clear statement, since we find evidence every day for something.
So what do you mean... could you please explain what you mean by that statement?

Are you saying that in science, there is no need to demonstrate that something is true?
I feel that cannot be what you are saying, yet you are saying I am wrong. So I am not sure. What am I wrong about?

The theory of gravity is a model, in the same way the theory of evolution is. Neither are facts.
Were you referring to the law of gravity, which is different to a theory? There is no law of evolution.
Both theories are accepted by the scientific community as the current best explanation of observed facts.
These facts are independent of any theory, and are observed by all. Interpreted differently, however. Interpretations are not facts, but you can believe them.
Others are free to not believe them.

Similar to the interpretation of facts indicating an intelligent designer.
These are not proven, but they are believed. One is free to disbelieve them.

Physical "laws" as you used the term are inferior to scientific theories. In the sciences a theory is as good as it gets.

As to evidence it appears that you ignored my post where I defined it. Do you not understand that there is no scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[nPeace]

Fairies are just as real as the god in the bible. As for the implications of this paper, it is only proposing that in the very earliest time of origin of life, there may have been more than one initial form of life created. The article only supports evolution completely and does not exclude a common ancestry. It does show the genetics supports common descent if you read it carefully.

Created? What do you mean? Do you mean you don't know how any life was created, and how many, or what?
Certainly, that is true. So how can you claim to know that one life form evolved to another life form, to produce the diversity on earth?

When you say the article supports evolution, please explain what you mean by evolution, since evolution can be understood many ways, and I have no problem with evolution, but I am discussing the concept or idea of UCA, or all life descending from one common ancestor.
Also, please extract the portion of the article which says what you claim. Your making a statement is just a claim, unless you can show me that what you have claimed is true.

 

[Audie]

Created? What do you mean? Do you mean you don't know how any life was created, and how many, or what?
Certainly, that is true. So how can you claim to know that one life form evolved to another life form, to produce the diversity on earth?

When you say the article supports evolution, please explain what you mean by evolution, since evolution can be understood many ways, and I have no problem with evolution, but I am discussing the concept or idea of UCA, or all life descending from one common ancestor.
Also, please extract the portion of the article which says what you claim. Your making a statement is just a claim, unless you can show me that what you have claimed is true.

Talk talk talk. If ToE is false prove it with
ONE good contrary fact.
Everything else you can say is vacuous blather.

 

[nPeace]

Physical "laws" as you used the term are inferior to scientific theories. In the sciences a theory is as good as it gets.

If one is just interested in acceptance of a belief, yes, that's as good as it gets.
I have no problem people being happy with accepted beliefs.
They are not facts, nor proven.

As to evidence it appears that you ignored my post where I defined it. Do you not understand that there is no scientific evidence for creationism?

No, I did not ignore your post.
What point do you think I missed?
I hope it's not one you repeatedly raise, although being repeatedly told that if you are talking about naturalistic methodologies, talking about God at the same time, is not showing that one truly understands what they are talking about.

So, what do you mean by scientific evidence for creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If one is just interested in acceptance of a belief, yes, that's as good as it gets.
I have no problem people being happy with accepted beliefs.
They are not facts, nor proven.


No, I did not ignore your post.
What point do you think I missed?
I hope it's not one you repeatedly raise, although being repeatedly told that if you are talking about naturalistic methodologies, talking about God at the same time, is not showing that one truly understands what they are talking about.

So, what do you mean by scientific evidence for creationism?

Laws are not proven either. Theories are better because they are a testable explanation of observed phenomena.

As to scientific evidence you may be conflating your personal version of God with what God is if he actually exists. If your God can lie and create false evidence then he may exist. If your God cannot lie then he has been refuted. The sciences and logic cannot refute God, but they can refute a self contradicting one.

And the reason I brought up evidence is that it is key to understanding how we know what we know.

 

[Audie]

If one is just interested in acceptance of a belief, yes, that's as good as it gets.
I have no problem people being happy with accepted beliefs.
They are not facts, nor proven.


No, I did not ignore your post.
What point do you think I missed?
I hope it's not one you repeatedly raise, although being repeatedly told that if you are talking about naturalistic methodologies, talking about God at the same time, is not showing that one truly understands what they are talking about.

So, what do you mean by scientific evidence for creationism?

Do you understand the concept of “contrary fact”?

 

[Audie]

Laws are not proven either. Theories are better because they are a testable explanation of observed phenomena.

As to scientific evidence you may be conflating your personal version of God with what God is if he actually exists. If your God can lie and create false evidence then he may exist. If your God cannot lie then he has been refuted. The sciences and logic cannot refute God, but they can refute a self contradicting one.

And the reason I brought up evidence is that it is key to understanding how we know what we know.

But you don’t know what would be evidence-most-scientific
for creationism?

Come now, scientific evidence for creationism?
Cannot be simpler.

Show that all organisms, plant and animal,
appeared simultaneously.

The fossil record would show that very consistently.
Cambrian bunnies, you know. That kind of thing.

Show that nothing dates to older than 6000 yrs.

Thinkaboutit! Way easier than demonstrating evolution.
You could prove creationism, but never can do that with ToE!

 

[nPeace]

Laws are not proven either. Theories are better because they are a testable explanation of observed phenomena.

As to scientific evidence you may be conflating your personal version of God with what God is if he actually exists. If your God can lie and create false evidence then he may exist. If your God cannot lie then he has been refuted. The sciences and logic cannot refute God, but they can refute a self contradicting one.

And the reason I brought up evidence is that it is key to understanding how we know what we know.

What you claim here is not true.
A theory is not better than a law. Or... can you prove what you claim?

Also, laws are tested, also, aren't they.
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.

A law, unlike a theory, does not change.
So your accepted belief can become unaccepted. Not so, a law.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What you claim here is not true.
A theory is not better than a law. Or... can you prove what you claim?

Also, laws are tested, also, aren't they.
Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena.

A law, unlike a theory, does not change.
So your accepted belief can become unaccepted. Not so, a law.

Laws tend to be refuted. Such as Newton's law of gravity. It cannot handle relativistic effects. Guess what can handle them? Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Yes, laws can be tested and they are refuted. Why do you think that a rigid idea is superior to a fluid one? Scientists understand that theories are not perfect. But they do keep getting more and more correct as time goes by.

 

[dad]

Please dad, that is not the way it works. Ask politely and I will post it again. The time to complain was when it was posted.

If you posted some solid case or evidence for one we would have seen the link when you were put on the spot. As always, we do not.

And no, I did not lie.

If you had not been busted betimes we could take that seriously.

The fact is that your version of God is a lying God.

In other words if we actually believe Jesus and Scripture rather than science fables in your mind that makes God a liar. Sorry, all it really does is leave you misinformed, and in the dark.

That is why most Christians do not take the myths of Genesis literally.

Baloney.

But you refuse to discuss the concept of evidence.

You have none so you pretend instead.

Lastly you are the one that wants to put Earth in a fishbowl with its own special rules.

I never asked God to make the earth unique and special. He did that all of His Own accord.

And no dad, constancy is not assumed.

You do not assume the same nature existed also in the past on earth? You do not assume the same laws and forces were in place here? You do not assume that time is uniform through all the universe?
You actually need to support that claim. Constancy is the conclusion from the Evidence.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you posted some solid case or evidence for one we would have seen the link when you were put on the spot. As always, we do not.
If you had not been busted betimes we could take that seriously.
In other words if we actually believe Jesus and Scripture rather than science fables in your mind that makes God a liar. Sorry, all it really does is leave you misinformed, and in the dark.
Baloney.
You have none so you pretend instead.


I never asked God to make the earth unique and special. He did that all of His Own accord.

You do not assume the same nature existed also in the past on earth? You do not assume the same laws and forces were in place here? You do not assume that time is uniform through all the universe?
You actually need to support that claim. Constancy is the conclusion from the Evidence.

[/QUOTE]
Poor dad, you have never caught me in a lie. And if you understood the sciences you would see how you are claiming that your God is a liar.

You did not ask politely, but here again is a link that shows your error:

Google Scholar

That links a slew of articles on observed nuclear decay in supernovas. They can measure decay rates and compare them to the rates here. Guess what? They are the same.

 

[nPeace]

Laws tend to be refuted. Such as Newton's law of gravity. It cannot handle relativistic effects. Guess what can handle them? Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Yes, laws can be tested and they are refuted. Why do you think that a rigid idea is superior to a fluid one? Scientists understand that theories are not perfect. But they do keep getting more and more correct as time goes by.

Theories are refuted, thrown out, and replaced.
You have not provided any support for your claim.
So does that mean you admit your claim was false?

 

[Bear Wild]

Created? What do you mean? Do you mean you don't know how any life was created, and how many, or what?
Certainly, that is true. So how can you claim to know that one life form evolved to another life form, to produce the diversity on earth?

When you say the article supports evolution, please explain what you mean by evolution, since evolution can be understood many ways, and I have no problem with evolution, but I am discussing the concept or idea of UCA, or all life descending from one common ancestor.
Also, please extract the portion of the article which says what you claim. Your making a statement is just a claim, unless you can show me that what you have claimed is true.

"Data generated by genomic sequencing projects from a wide variety of species now allow for the assembly of combined protein sequence data sets to reconstruct the universal tree of life" straight from the article itself.

The only argument this article is questioning is whether there on one event in biogenesis with all stemming from that one event of whether multiple events of biogenesis may have occurred thus blended later. The article is completely supports evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Theories are refuted, thrown out, and replaced.
You have not provided any support for your claim.
So does that mean you admit your claim was false?

Very, very rarely. Most of the time what is referred to by a creationist was not a theory in the first place.

 

[Bear Wild]

Poor dad, you have never caught me in a lie. And if you understood the sciences you would see how you are claiming that your God is a liar.

You did not ask politely, but here again is a link that shows your error:

Google Scholar

That links a slew of articles on observed nuclear decay in supernovas. They can measure decay rates and compare them to the rates here. Guess what? They are the same.[/QUOTE]
The problem with "dad" is that he does not want to understand what is real. He only wants to criticize what he does not understand with the closed mind of someone who will reject anything based on evidence in favor of imagination. No matter what you post "dad" comes back with another outrageous statement and never learns from what is presented.

 

[nPeace]

"Data generated by genomic sequencing projects from a wide variety of species now allow for the assembly of combined protein sequence data sets to reconstruct the universal tree of life" straight from the article itself.

The only argument this article is questioning is whether there on one event in biogenesis with all stemming from that one event of whether multiple events of biogenesis may have occurred thus blended later. The article is completely supports evolution.

Since you answered none of my questions, I will have to assume.
As the article mentioned, a lot of circumstantial evidence has been gathered to support the theory, However, UCA, is not verified.
That was my point.
In other words, there is no objective verifiable evidence for the theory that all life came from one common ancestor.
That's essentially what the article said, which I previously quoted.

Worst, is this idea that genetics somehow verifies common descent.
That is a false premise.

Transcriptomic and genomic sequences offer a nearly overwhelming source of information for inferring relationships, with some studies employing hundreds of genes. Despite great potential, phylogenomics has thus far failed to confidently resolve relationships of many animal groups (Dunn et al. 2014). Inferring relationships among major metazoan lineages (i.e., Bilateria, Ctenophora, Cnidaria, Placozoa, and Porifera) has been particularly difficult, with numerous recent studies recovering conflicting phylogenetic topologies

Sequence similarity and homology are not equivalent
One common thread among the various arguments for common ancestry is the inference from certain biological similarities to homology. However, with apologies to Fisher, similarity is not homology. It is widely assumed that strong sequence similarity indicates genetic kinship. Nonetheless, as I and many others have argued , sequence similarity is strictly an empirical observation; homology, on the other hand, is a hypothesis intended to explain the similarity. Common ancestry is only one possible mechanism that results in similarity between sequences. In a landmark paper on the inference of homology from sequence similarity, the late Walter Fitch presented the problem as follows:

Now two proteins may appear similar because they descend with divergence from a common ancestral gene (i.e., are homologous in a time-honoured meaning dating back at the least to Darwin's Origin of Species) or because they descend with convergence from separate ancestral genes (i.e., are analogous). It is nevertheless possible that the restrictions imposed by a functional fitness may cause sufficient convergence to produce an apparent genetic relatedness. Therefore, the demonstration that two present-day sequences are significantly similar, by either chemical or genetic criteria, still must necessarily leave undecided the question whether their similarity is the result of a convergent process or all that remains from a divergent process. For example, it is at least philosophically possible to argue that fungal cytochromes c are not truly homologous to the metazoan cytochromes c, i.e., they just look homologous.

Colin Patterson made a similar argument, explicitly pointing out that statistically significant sequence similarity does not necessarily force the conclusion of homology:

… given that homologies are hypothetical, how do we test them? How do we decide that an observed similarity is a valid inference of common ancestry? If similarity must be discriminated from homology, its assessment (statistically significant or not, for example) is not necessarily synonymous with testing a hypothesis of homology.
How, then, would we know if highly similar biological sequences had independent origins or not? In all but the most trivial cases we do not have direct, independent evidence for homology — rather, we conventionally infer the answer based on some qualitative argument, often involving sequence similarity as a premise.

While there is the uncertainty regarding the earl stages, there is uncertainty way up the tree coral, as well.
The strongest evidence lacks verification, also.
Also. it is not objective evidence.