Evolution My ToE

[McBell]

You know it. It is just not usually presented under the originators name.

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon -- it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.
Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

Beat me to it.
But I have a link.
Nanner nanner nanner

 

[Audie]

So, instead of answering the question honestly and directly you are admitting to using a confusing ploy to disrupt the discussion. We are discussing biological evolution on a thread that YOU started about biological evolution. How did you come to think this thread is about some other subject? Your response does not make any sense. It sounds like another tactic employed by a person that recognizes they do not have the facts and reason on their side.

It was a good response. It cured me of interacting with him.

 

[Audie]

Just once, I would love to have a creationist give the honest response that they have no valid scientific objection to evolution, but simply reject it from belief and because their church says they have to.

Dr. K WISE openly admits to that intellectual
dishonesty. There could be others.
Internet creos, never.

 

[Audie]

I am confused.

me too where did you get that

 

[SkepticThinker]

Since acceptance of reality is honest and honesty is a virtue often esteemed by many religions, it would be honest to accept the best explanations about the world. I think honesty should be explored as an option by creationists. They should try it out. See how it feels.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[metis]

What do you know about me? Nothing.
So I don't mind the empty words.
Since this is not about religion, I won't respond on you and yours, which you get so upset about.
There are a set of people that like to talk about other people's faith, and criticize other people, and then claim they don't like that, and that people do it to them when the person hasn't. There is a name for that, and it's far worst than having blinders on.

The above is simply just a smokescreen you've put forth to try and switch the reality that your position is not only anti-science but also bad theology to boot because it doesn't posit other possible alternatives. And for you as a JW to criticize me calling you out on this is so utterly hypocritical because you JW's do this all the time with people in other Christian and non-Christian denominations/religions.

Science and religion must not be contradictory because, if so, then one or both must be bogus. They each do look at many things from different perspectives, but their conclusions must not be at polar opposites. Assuming that God created our universe, He must be reflected in its composition much like an artist is reflected in his/her artwork that they do for themselves. That's why science is so important, namely that our universe must reflect God. If not, then there's a problem.

If you don't want to respond to me, that's OK. But when you criticize someone for exactly the same thing you and your fellow JW's do to so many others, then the reality is that the real problem is really yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

This has nothing to do with falsifying evolution because -- the evidence doesn't fit the theory. What fossils and artifacts show is that something happened, something was alive but now is dead, and it also could have been an animal that has been made extinct. And evolution doesn't fit the picture, imo now. But it seems to me that -- again -- the evidence brought in as if it fits the theory just doesn't work. And some scientists, whether they believe the Bible or not is not the issue here, no longer espouse the theory.
Definition of scientific evidence by one source:
"Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method." Wikipedia'

Except that the evidence does fit the theory. Hence the reason it is the currently accepted scientific theory that best explains the diversity of life on earth, and has been for many, many decades now. But again, if somebody doesn't think it's a sound theory, then they'd need to DEMONSTRATE that with evidence. Because as it stands, it is the most well evidenced scientific theory in existence.

Of course it has everything to do with falsifying evolution. If it is so obviously wrong, then falsifying it should be a no-brainer. Like I said, all it would take would be something like a rabbit fossil in the pre-Cambrian to do it. You've got people working on falsifying evolution all over the place, including those religious folks that desperately want it to be false, and still, nothing. In the 160 years since Darwin first proposed evolution, every single bit of evidence discovered since then, including genetics (which Darwin had absolutely no clue about) has fit the theory and none has falsified it to date. Why hasn't anybody managed to do it yet?

Furthermore, there are scientists who realize the theory just doesn't add up.

This is nonsense. You shouldn't get your information from YouTube videos.

They need to demonstrate that it "doesn't add up" because all available evidence we have at the moment backs up the fact of evolution. If they have some evidence that falsifies it, then they need to present it already! That's how this all works.

While I am pretty sure you will disagree or put down the scientists who disagree with the theory pertaining especially to natural selection, I have come to my own conclusions about the lack of evidence verifying the theory as I see it, and that is basically based on the comments from believers of evolution trying to show me evolution is 'true,' even though truth in the absolute sense is scientifically unverifiable, on these boards. But thank you anyway, even if we disagree.

What I would say to those scientists is the same as I've said above. They'd need to demonstrate that evolution is false in some way, because all available evidence currently in existence supports the fact of evolution.

How have you come to your own conclusion about the "lack of evidence verifying the theory" when you have no idea what the evidence is, or what they theory even is in the first place?
Have you Googled "nested hierarchies" or "comparative genomics" yet? You seem very focused on the fossil record, which on it's own is quite amazing, but there is far more evidence available. And again, all that evidence points to the same conclusion - that evolution is a fact of life.

Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution - Science and Creationism - NCBI Bookshelf
Three Pieces of Evidence That Prove Evolution is a Fact
How do we know that evolution is really happening?
Evolution - AQA - Revision 7 - GCSE Biology (Single Science) - BBC Bitesize

 

[SkepticThinker]

How can evolution be demonstrably verified? (It can't be.)

It can and has been. Hence the reason it's the currently accepted theory that explains the diversity of life on earth, and has been for 160 years now.

I've provided a ton of links with tons of evidence for you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Right now it just makes me laugh when I see artist's depictions of what they imagine were the faces of previous types of humans. My conclusion about the theory is from the fact that the proof (evidence) taken is basically that of fossils and making it appear they fit into the theory because they have similar looking parts, etc.

Why would that make you laugh? You apparently know next to nothing about it. Instead of laughing, you should be reading and learning.

Nobody is "making it appear that they fit into the theory." The fact of the matter is that every fossil that has been found to date fits very well with the scientific theory of evolution and none found to date have shown it to be false. It would be extremely easy to falsify evolution with fossil evidence - all you'd have to do is find one out of place, like for instance,. a rabbit fossil in the preCambrian layers of the earth. Maybe ask yourself why such things aren't found. And of course, we have evidence beyond the fossil record which has been pointed out to you on several occasions. Have you looked up nested hierarchies and comparative genomics yet?

Let me ask you something. You do understand that genetics can reveal degrees of relatedness between organisms, right? Like how you share greater amounts of DNA with your parents, than you do with say, your third cousins or your great-great grandparents? And you further realize that you, your siblings, your cousins, your parents, etc. all share common ancestors that lived some time in the past, right? And you know this can all be detected by DNA analysis, right? Evolution works like this, where more closely related organisms share greater similarities in genetics, appearance, etc., and going back in time, those similarities decrease, though there is still a degree of relatedness between them – like how you and your third cousin both share the same great-great grandparents as your common ancestors, while the two of you share only around 0.78% of your DNA with each other (in comparison to the 50% of DNA you share with your siblings and 12.5% you share with your first cousin). So, on a larger scale, we can look at the fossil record, and the available genetic evidence (among other types of evidence) we have in order to help us determine which creatures are the common ancestors to modern humans (and obviously other organisms as well). This is why I keep telling you to look up nested hierarchies, wherein “groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.”

Nested hierarchies


Common ancestry is demonstrable.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What does the 'evidence indicate' with regard to the *yes, I'm going to ask it* Cambrian fossil record?

Go check out one of the other 5+ posts I've made to you on the subject.
I'm not playing these games anymore where I waste my time giving you something when you're only going to repeat the same claim again next week as though it never happened.
I will however, point out every time I see you making the same debunked claim over and over again.

 

[YoursTrue]

Declaring opposition is great, but irrelevant if they cannot offer anything of substance.

Saying that they simply 'don't believe it', as many of them do, is a good reason NOT to voice your opposition, because it makes one look like petulant child.


Provide an example please.

You are aware, are you not, that peers that review creationist pubs are required to affirm that they will either never allow anything critical of creationism to see the light of day, or that they will only endorse pro-creation stuff (while these seem to be two sides of the same coin, they differ in their 'logic')?

I put a link, I believe, to one article referring to the problematic situation of peer review. But here it is again from the New Republic, I don't now if it's a "creationist" magazine, perhaps you've heard of the magazine, it's pretty popular:
Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
That's just one journal mentioning the real problem with peer review. There are more. So peer review doesn't sway me. My idea of creation is not something that everyone who believes in creation will accept. For instance, I am not what is termed a "new earther."
As I have said, and I would be happy to go over things in detail with you -- if you can't explain it in simple enough terms to understand, there's no reason I should automatically take someone else's idea for it. I'm the type that questions doctors and others about procedures or medications they suggest, and I like my doctor now because, although we go slowly, she is very understanding and listens to me, so she knows I will not do something just because she recommends it. It's the same, I have learned over the years, with other experts. They differ and can rush through evaluations. So unless I am assured of something that is important to me, and I not only understand it, but believe it, there is no reason for me to accept it. And, of course, we don't want to forget that the theory of evolution is not immutable. Not only that, I don't 'see' the evidence as proving the theory. (Yes, I know, nothing can be proven in science, at least that's the thought I have seen expressed by many. Scientists, that is. And now that I see and understand and moreover, believe what Genesis says, I no longer believe in evolution as natural selection, that's for sure.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Why would that make you laugh? You apparently know next to nothing about it. Instead of laughing, you should be reading and learning.

Nobody is "making it appear that they fit into the theory." The fact of the matter is that every fossil that has been found to date fits very well with the scientific theory of evolution and none found to date have shown it to be false. It would be extremely easy to falsify evolution with fossil evidence - all you'd have to do is find one out of place, like for instance,. a rabbit fossil in the preCambrian layers of the earth. Maybe ask yourself why such things aren't found. And of course, we have evidence beyond the fossil record which has been pointed out to you on several occasions. Have you looked up nested hierarchies and comparative genomics yet?

Let me ask you something. You do understand that genetics can reveal degrees of relatedness between organisms, right? Like how you share greater amounts of DNA with your parents, than you do with say, your third cousins or your great-great grandparents? And you further realize that you, your siblings, your cousins, your parents, etc. all share common ancestors that lived some time in the past, right? And you know this can all be detected by DNA analysis, right? Evolution works like this, where more closely related organisms share greater similarities in genetics, appearance, etc., and going back in time, those similarities decrease, though there is still a degree of relatedness between them – like how you and your third cousin both share the same great-great grandparents as your common ancestors, while the two of you share only around 0.78% of your DNA with each other (in comparison to the 50% of DNA you share with your siblings and 12.5% you share with your first cousin). So, on a larger scale, we can look at the fossil record, and the available genetic evidence (among other types of evidence) we have in order to help us determine which creatures are the common ancestors to modern humans (and obviously other organisms as well). This is why I keep telling you to look up nested hierarchies, wherein “groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.”

Nested hierarchies


Common ancestry is demonstrable.

I have been looking up information about DNA and RNA. I understand that DNA between organisms are similar in many respects. However, yes, I do laugh when I see what scientists and artists deem to be representative of ancestors, and by that I mean Denisovans, etc. Because they really don't know what they looked like, hairdo's and all. Now I see conjecture that apes lost their hair as they became humanoids, because of parasites and women were repelled by this. (ridiculous)
And then the very commonly shown drawing of monkeys, gorillas, finally standing upright as humans. Yet the percentage of DNA between the organisms and then finally humans leaves something out. And while they are close, they are not obviously exactly the same. 1 or 2% difference? Leaving out some genomes, I suppose. (Still o missing link found.)
And because I believe the account in Genesis as how life on this earth came about, God creating plant life, animal life and then humans (no, I no longer say humans are biologically animals), I no longer believe that evolution by natural selection is true. I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And after the earth was made perfect for life on it, He made this beautiful earth for mankind to enjoy.
Thank you for the conversation. You are respectful and I appreciate that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I put a link, I believe, to one article referring to the problematic situation of peer review. But here it is again from the New Republic, I don't now if it's a "creationist" magazine, perhaps you've heard of the magazine, it's pretty popular:
Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems
That's just one journal mentioning the real problem with peer review. There are more. So peer review doesn't sway me. My idea of creation is not something that everyone who believes in creation will accept. For instance, I am not what is termed a "new earther."
As I have said, and I would be happy to go over things in detail with you -- if you can't explain it in simple enough terms to understand, there's no reason I should automatically take someone else's idea for it. I'm the type that questions doctors and others about procedures or medications they suggest, and I like my doctor now because, although we go slowly, she is very understanding and listens to me, so she knows I will not do something just because she recommends it. It's the same, I have learned over the years, with other experts. They differ and can rush through evaluations. So unless I am assured of something that is important to me, and I not only understand it, but believe it, there is no reason for me to accept it. And, of course, we don't want to forget that the theory of evolution is not immutable. Not only that, I don't 'see' the evidence as proving the theory. (Yes, I know, nothing can be proven in science, at least that's the thought I have seen expressed by many. Scientists, that is. And now that I see and understand and moreover, believe what Genesis says, I no longer believe in evolution as natural selection, that's for sure.)

In your opinion, what is the problem with peer review? Can you also explain what you think peer review is?
What do you think when published claims and evidence are repeated and verified by more published claims and evidence via the peer review process?

Can you explain what you think natural selection is, and why you don't "believe in evolution as natural selection?" Could you also explain what you mean by that sentence?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been looking up information about DNA and RNA. I understand that DNA between organisms are similar in many respects. However, yes, I do laugh when I see what scientists and artists deem to be representative of ancestors, and by that I mean Denisovans, etc. Because they really don't know what they looked like, hairdo's and all. Now I see conjecture that apes lost their hair as they became humanoids, because of parasites and women were repelled by this. (ridiculous)
And then the very commonly shown drawing of monkeys, gorillas, finally standing upright as humans. Yet the percentage of DNA between the organisms and then finally humans leaves something out. And while they are close, they are not obviously exactly the same. 1 or 2% difference? Leaving out some genomes, I suppose. (Still o missing link found.)

No, they are not exactly the same, nor should they be. The point is about degrees of relatedness. That was pretty much the whole point. It would be great if you'd address it.

And just what missing link is it that you're looking for? You didn't find it on the page with all the human ancestors listed and described on it?

I have no idea what you mean by "leaving out some genomes." Do you mean genes?

I'm sorry to tell you, but you really don't understand evolution.

And because I believe the account in Genesis as how life on this earth came about, God creating plant life, animal life and then humans (no, I no longer say humans are biologically animals), I no longer believe that evolution by natural selection is true. I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And after the earth was made perfect for life on it, He made this beautiful earth for mankind to enjoy.

Why do you just believe this, and why do you not have the same questions regarding evidence when it comes to accepting whatever the Bible says about the earth?

Thank you for the conversation. You are respectful and I appreciate that.

And thank you. I do my best to be respectful, though I'm sure I don't always live up to it.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

is it too much to ask you to answer questions that people ask you? Considering you have made claims that others do not answer your questions, I would think that you would be enthusiastic to set a positive example to point out and encourage others to follow. It would be the right thing to do.

I went to bed, it was after 2AM. You know I do sleep.

Trilobites arrive suddenly in the record, w/ fully developed, compound eye lenses. Hundreds (thousands?) of species of them, all appear abruptly within that 10-15 m.y. timeframe of the radiation. Trilobites are just one group...there are between 20 and 32 different, modern animal phyla represented, including brachiopods and arthropods, that first arrive in the Cambrian.

And although life appears in the fossil record eons before that, it’s unicellular forms; then, in the Ediacaran, there appears multicellular life....but nothing that would indicate ancestral forms to many of those in the Cambrian.

(I’ve posted answers similar to this before....you never read them?)

The information is online, for all to find.

(And I’ll respond when I can. You’re not not at my beck-and-call... neither am I to yours.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Go check out one of the other 5+ posts I've made to you on the subject.
I'm not playing these games anymore where I waste my time giving you something when you're only going to repeat the same claim again next week as though it never happened.
I will however, point out every time I see you making the same debunked claim over and over again.

You’ve provided nothing of substance on that subject! “Previous life existed”...no kiddin! It’s all special pleading.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You’ve provided nothing of substance on that subject! “Previous life existed”...no kiddin! It’s all special pleading.

You've provided nothing of substance on the subject. All you've done is repeated an old creationist canard that has been debunked decades ago.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You've provided nothing of substance on the subject. All you've done is repeated an old creationist canard that has been debunked decades ago.

Yeah, right....
Why are you afraid to examine the evidence?

If it truly had “been debunked decades ago,” there wouldn’t be such problems explaining it....

“Why did the Cambrian explosion happen when it did, and why was it such a unique event? While there is no current consensus among scientists, most researchers agree the explosion cannot be ascribed to a single, simple causal mechanism. The potential triggers can be classified in three main categories: environmental, genetic, and ecological. Deciphering the impact of each of these factors remains one of the most important challenges faced by palaeontologists today.”
— The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals and the Cambrian Explosion - Science - The Burgess Shale

“Debunked”, eh?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah, right....
Why are you afraid to examine the evidence?

If it truly had “been debunked decades ago,” there wouldn’t be such problems explaining it....

“Why did the Cambrian explosion happen when it did, and why was it such a unique event? While there is no current consensus among scientists, most researchers agree the explosion cannot be ascribed to a single, simple causal mechanism. The potential triggers can be classified in three main categories: environmental, genetic, and ecological. Deciphering the impact of each of these factors remains one of the most important challenges faced by palaeontologists today.”
— The Cambrian Explosion - Origin of Animals and the Cambrian Explosion - Science - The Burgess Shale

“Debunked”, eh?

Your claim has been debunked long ago. As in, the specific claim you keep making. The above quotation has nothing to do with your claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have been looking up information about DNA and RNA. I understand that DNA between organisms are similar in many respects. However, yes, I do laugh when I see what scientists and artists deem to be representative of ancestors, and by that I mean Denisovans, etc. Because they really don't know what they looked like, hairdo's and all. Now I see conjecture that apes lost their hair as they became humanoids, because of parasites and women were repelled by this. (ridiculous)
And then the very commonly shown drawing of monkeys, gorillas, finally standing upright as humans. Yet the percentage of DNA between the organisms and then finally humans leaves something out. And while they are close, they are not obviously exactly the same. 1 or 2% difference? Leaving out some genomes, I suppose. (Still o missing link found.)
And because I believe the account in Genesis as how life on this earth came about, God creating plant life, animal life and then humans (no, I no longer say humans are biologically animals), I no longer believe that evolution by natural selection is true. I believe that "in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." And after the earth was made perfect for life on it, He made this beautiful earth for mankind to enjoy.
Thank you for the conversation. You are respectful and I appreciate that.

Are you for real? What are you babbling about?