Evolution My ToE

[McBell]

That day is every day for me.
In one example in history, Mary got evidence that what Gabriel told her was true. It was observed. If science was there, it would say it was impossible.

If science was there the claim would have been investigated, researched, tested, etc.
Not take on blind faith.

 

[McBell]

Foolish old wives' tales and delusionary misconceptions about Scripture have no merit or worth.

Yet here you are trying to convince people otherwise...

 

[McBell]

I do not deny the spirits in history. Do you?

You deny everything that you see appears to challenge your beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Foolish old wives' tales and delusionary misconceptions about Scripture have no merit or worth.

I notice you fled the science issue you pretended to have evidence for.
The question is how do you know that the time anything takes in the fishbowl (including decay) represents what time is like in deep space? Offering a list of times that decay takes in the fishbowl is not going to do it.

Happy fleeing.

You really should not bring up "foolish old wives tales". And no. I did not flee the science question. You lost that debate. You refuse to deal with the evidence. Probably because you do not understand even the concept of evidence. Until you learn the basics it is impossible for you to see your errors. Are you saying that you are ready to have a discussion on the basics of science? If so I am more than happy to do so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.

It does. You seem to be unaware of how badly Luke messed up with his 'census' claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That day is every day for me.
In one example in history, Mary got evidence that what Gabriel told her was true. It was observed. If science was there, it would say it was impossible.

That is not history. That is myth from a holy book.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not deny the spirits in history. Do you?

You are conflating history and mythology again. There are no spirits in history. There are plenty of spirits in mythology.

 

[Astrophile]

If science looked at Lazarus who was raised from the dead, they would have said that all the very healthy tissue and organs tells us that he could not have been dead or even sick! Yet the Spirit of God had just affected him big time!

Just as a matter of interest, why is this astounding miracle not recorded in the synoptic gospels?

 

[Bear Wild]

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

Your source does not match your link which only has the abstract. Please make your link or the reference to the link much clearer.

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.

You a link to an article which is clearly in support of the use of statistical studies showing common descent which includes a section that refutes the first link which was supportive of evolution but states the current information cannot exclude multiple origins. Either way both supportive of evolution. If you agree with them then you have finally become an evolution supporter even if you now believe that there were multiple origins.

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.

Another article supportive of evolution but bringing up the possibility of convergent evolution explaining some relatedness of proteins. Clearly you are starting to accept the theory of evolution.

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.

Still more discussion on convergent evolutional possibilities reminding those that study evolution to be open minded and consider all possibilities. I got it. No question that evolution is the process only keep an open mind that some proteins and dna sequences may not be always homologs but could also be convergent. Everything you have presented is in support of evolution. Thanks for your contribution to demonstrating that evolution is correct. I would like to read any other supportive articles you may have.

 

[Bear Wild]

History and Scripture are records of encounters with spirits and spiritual things.

In every case, people affected had evidence! Elijah had evidence of the food dropped by ravens in his belly! Mary had evidence of what the angel said in her belly!


Not as far as science goes.

So are fairy tales. No one could have saved Rapunzel if she did not have such long hair. Clear evidence for that just like yours. Snow White could not have been woken up from here deep sleep if that had not been prince charming. She woke up from his kiss. What more evidence could you ask for. With your logic in hand all fiction becomes truth and what is measured observed or tested becomes false. Clearly you have gone through the rabbit hole and never come out.

 

[nPeace]

Your source does not match your link which only has the abstract. Please make your link or the reference to the link much clearer.



You a link to an article which is clearly in support of the use of statistical studies showing common descent which includes a section that refutes the first link which was supportive of evolution but states the current information cannot exclude multiple origins. Either way both supportive of evolution. If you agree with them then you have finally become an evolution supporter even if you now believe that there were multiple origins.

Sorry about the first link. It somehow got mixed up.
Nevertheless...
What is this about "If you agree with them then you have finally become an evolution supporter even if you now believe that there were multiple origins"?

I have no idea what you are talking about, since you have not verified / clarified.
I also have not read anywhere in the article, stating that UCA has been verified.
You also have not quoted anything that supports anything you say.

If by using the word evolution you feel it somehow bypasses what I am saying, I don't see how that is meaningful, since no Creationist denies evolution.
So what is your point then?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your source does not match your link which only has the abstract. Please make your link or the reference to the link much clearer.



You a link to an article which is clearly in support of the use of statistical studies showing common descent which includes a section that refutes the first link which was supportive of evolution but states the current information cannot exclude multiple origins. Either way both supportive of evolution. If you agree with them then you have finally become an evolution supporter even if you now believe that there were multiple origins.

So can you explain how DNA sequences came about?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I have given my response some thought before rendering it, since it clearly needs to be thoughtfully conveyed. I am not trying to offend you or put you down. It is not personal and I think you would be a fine person to know in reality given what I have seen in here and our differences aside. However, in the case where someone is placing ideology and doctrine ahead of logic, reason and evidence, they are taking an anti-intellectual position. It is not simply a dispute over common descent that I base this on. Your particular church and many churches and religions have a history of closing the door on anything that challenges the prescribed view of the world that is founded on a dogma of believed conditions and not on observed conditions. Certainly, I do not see you as a worst case. Someone like @dad is a good example of that. He just makes up fantasy interpretations of the world, religion and science, declares them universal truths and then spends his entire presence here continually repeating that nonsense. You are here and willing to discuss, so that is a positive.

Do you really think a global flood is supported by the evidence you have presented in light of all the evidence that demonstrates there was no flood? Is a Chinese character really that compelling as evidence for a global flood? Or is it the line that your church holds and since you are a good member, you hold it too? That would be an anti-intellectual position as distasteful as that may be to you.

You are equating the reliance on dogma in religion for drawing conclusions as being on a par with intellectual challenges over explanations within science. That is a false comparison. The two are not even close, let alone equal. The sheer number, sources and diversity of ideological claims shatters that comparison without any need for continuing examples.

Much is made by creationists --way too much--of the controversies in science, and scientists, admittedly at times, can be dogmatic. As much as I may wish we all met the ideal of objectivity more closely. At least science promotes and strives for objectivity and questioning. But these controversies are based on evidence, weighing that evidence for reason, and an underlying logic. Not on some dogmatic doctrine. Scientists do not propose changes caprisciously for no good reason or based on the doctrine of some group the belong to.

Scientists constantly challenge the conclusions of science. That is practically the job description. Science is forced by its own structure and ethics to deal with even the most bizarre and poorly founded claims. Just the existence of alternative claims is not evidence of a weakness in established claims or that there is a controversy or where one does exist it is to the extent of significance that detractors hope for. But even in dealing with radical or weak claims, knowledge can be discovered. Often, it is in division that science is moved forward.

Even though a position placing religious dogma over true learning is truly an anti-intellectual position, I do not wish to imply that I think that is all that you, personally, are about. I find that you are an interesting and engaging presence here and much of what you have posted has pressed me to look deeper and understand better. Even material and positions I disagree with. I hope that this post reflects the thought I put into it in recognition of that and does not inspire you to close a door. I truly believe that you can accept science and maintain your belief in God without the human imposed restrictions. Personally, I don't see that you can't be a good Jehovah's Witness even if you were to accept the theory of common descent. It is not as if any Christian truly understands God enough to make declarations about Him.

I've been thinking about this post for a while, now....I've accomplished much of what I needed to get done.
There's a lot here to reply to; I appreciate your thoughtful points.

You know, however, that I presented more Flood evidence, than just a Chinese character. Much more....

If archaeologists recently unearthed an ancient document that spoke of a man, who survived a cataclysmic flood by building a boat that was basically a huge box.... '120 cubits by 120 cubits square, 90 cubits high,' as described in the Gilgamesh myth... there'd be no doubt that it was a fable.

But, if they found the story described a boat with modern ratios, they would think the story was fact.
Now, you and I and everyone else knows the story has a supernatural quality to it, events that reveal Divine intervention, in many aspects.

Let's consider one: the reason behind Jehovah God bringing it on. Genesis 6:1-4 gives a few details...sons of God taking women, "all whom they chose". (And the common thread between the ancient Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindu, etc., myths actually highlight it. Common threads in stories, is where truth is found.)

If you will please bear with me, I'm going to go off-topic twice, somewhat... but it's all related....

Is there evidence for the supernatural? Talk to the numerous posters on here (RF), like the Ragin Pagan, or others, who regularly converse with their spirit guides or gods, whatever they call them. I've spoken with Jose Fly, It Aint Necessarily So, & a few others....they stop short of calling these ones, 'delusional'.

Have you ever read the link I've posted before, on Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia ...

Here's an excerpt:
"Perhaps the most famous incident was in 1942 when Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands allegedly heard footsteps outside her White House bedroom and answered a knock on the door, only to see Lincoln in frock coat and top hat standing in front of her (she promptly fainted).[13]

British Prime Minister Winston Churchill loved to retire late, take a long, hot bath while drinking a Scotch, and smoke a cigar and relax. There is an account that on this occasion, he climbed out of the bath and naked, but for his cigar, walked into the adjoining bedroom. He was startled to see Lincoln standing by the fireplace in the room, leaning on the mantle. Churchill, always quick on the uptake, simply took his cigar out of his mouth, tapped the ash off the end of his cigar and said "Good evening, Mr. President. You seem to have me at a disadvantage." Lincoln smiled softly, as if laughing and disappeared. Churchill smiled in embarrassment.[14]

President Lyndon Johnson supposedly encountered Lincoln's apparition, during a moment of great distress. President Johnson reportedly spoke to Lincoln, asking him how he handled an unpopular war (Lincoln was President during the American Civil War, which was extremely unpopular and Johnson was dealing with massive backlash over the Vietnam War). Lincoln reportedly replied "don't go to the theater."

Lincoln's ghost was reportedly seen outside of the White House as well. In Loudonville, New York, Lincoln's ghost was said to haunt a house that was owned by a woman who was present at Ford's Theatre when Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth. Other Lincoln hauntings included his grave in Springfield, Illinois, a portrait of Mary Todd Lincoln and a phantom train on nights in April along the same path his funeral train followed from Washington, D.C. to Springfield.[15]

The last sighting of Lincoln's ghost was in the early 1980s, when Tony Savoy, White House operations foreman, came into the White House and saw Lincoln sitting in a chair at the top of some stairs.[13]"

Were these people, "delusional"?

Now Earthwide, multiply these experiences, by a million!

Yes, granted, many (most, even) are faked. But all? No way.

Why do incidents like this happen? I've heard the explanation, "people want to believe their dead loved ones are living (in another realm) ." Was Abraham Lincoln, a "loved one" of Queen Wilhelmina? Or Winston Churchill?

And if these dead loved ones are genuine, and it's what people "want to believe"... why is there so much fear involved in cultures that promote ancestor worship? (It touches so many cultures, in some way or another!) I mean, wouldn't your dead G-parents, if they were really living, still love you? Why be afraid of them?

Because here's the kicker: the dead are dead, they "know nothing", according to the Bible. Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 146:3-4

The Resurrection is the future hope for the dead, nothing else.

Saying "the dead don't really die; they go to live somewhere else," is simply reinforcing the first lie, when the serpent told Eve, "You positively will not die"! And this idea is seen worldwide, promoted by almost every religion!

Aided by these "Ghost" stories. But these ghosts can't really be our dead loved ones, because they "know nothing"; they're dead!

Who are these imposters, trying to mislead everyone?
They are "the angels that sinned" (2 Peter 2:4), who "did not stay in their own domain, but abandoned their proper dwelling place" (Jude 1:6)....those "sons of God" of Genesis 6.

More on this later, I've got to go.
I hope you're willing to reason on this. It explains why God had to destroy the animals, too. (Please read Matthew 8:28-34.)

I read the Scriptures about these things, and I see the hurting and confusion that people are experiencing worldwide...I understand who is behind all this mess! (Just a little while longer.)

The Bible explains a lot, if people would be open minded & try to understand it.

 

[dad]

If science was there the claim would have been investigated, researched, tested, etc.
Not take on blind faith.

So a ghostbuster team would have been sent to Daniel's place to detect traces of Gabriel having visited?

 

[dad]

Yet here you are trying to convince people otherwise...

Anytime you want to challenge me on the bible, feel free. Juvenile sniping doesn't cut it.

 

[dad]

You deny everything that you see appears to challenge your beliefs.

Nothing ever actually. You thought anyone saw Satanic origin beliefs?

 

[dad]

You really should not bring up "foolish old wives tales". And no. I did not flee the science question. You lost that debate. You refuse to deal with the evidence. Probably because you do not understand even the concept of evidence. Until you learn the basics it is impossible for you to see your errors. Are you saying that you are ready to have a discussion on the basics of science? If so I am more than happy to do so.

Keep pretending all you like. Your posts betray you.

 

[dad]

It does. You seem to be unaware of how badly Luke messed up with his 'census' claim.

I have heard the baseless doubts behind what you are trying to say.

 

[dad]

That is not history. That is myth from a holy book.

Says you, who have no clue what went down.

 

[dad]

You are conflating history and mythology again. There are no spirits in history. There are plenty of spirits in mythology.

Ignorant claim.