Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

The problem with this is that it is a vain effort from 'argument from ignorance' and a negative assertion which cannot be falsified. Your intent here is that because there is missing evidence therefore the hypothesis is false. The evidence clearly indicates a progression of evolution of life from one celled animals billions of years to multicellular animals to a great variety of complex species. This fossil evidence existence in a very uniform progression in the sedimentary record over the billions of years necessary for the deposit of the sediments and limestone in shallow seas. The progressive evolution has evidence in great detail for the origins of amphibians, mammals, birds and other animals. Yes, there are of course missing gaps in the evolution of life, but there are discoveries constantly coming to light that fill those gaps. Human primate evolution has no come up with close to a complete evolution among primates.

The problem with the fundamentalist Creationists they have not come up with an alternate explanation that can be verified by the evidence. The other problem is you do not acknowledge the evidence we have concerning the history of life, our planet and universe.

To an extent, it boils down to trial by jury, where the jury can be presented evidence but the evidence can be faulty. Yet convincing. That there are genetic similarities in animals separate but distinct does not prove evolution. As I said, I used to believe what evolutionists say and teach, but now I am looking further at the concept (theory), and realize it has large holes, even from the evidence that is purported to back up thoroughly (absolutely (?)) the theory of evolution. I no longer believe it. And frankly, doubt is cast in me also from looking at discussions about textbooks that are simply wrong and inaccurate in many areas, yet were taught to lower and upper grades as truth to be accepted by students. Sad really.

 

[shunyadragon]

To an extent, it boils down to trial by jury, where the jury can be presented evidence but the evidence can be faulty. Yet convincing.

You have failed to present a case that the evidence is faulty. The best you have done is present a faulty logic of the arguing from ignorance, because you believe that there is missing evidence the hypothesis is false.

There is no trial by jury, and you have added an insult to our judicial system. There are tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, making new discoveries and researching the genetics, geology, paleontology, physics, stratigraphy, and other fields in biology.

That there are genetic similarities in animals separate but distinct does not prove evolution.

Simply, the similarity of genetics is NOT how scientists use genetics, and the many other sources of correlated evidence to falsify the hypothesis of evolution.

Lousy understanding of science based on a religious agenda. Science does not prove anything. What you have blatantly failed to do is provide an alternative hypothesis based on the evidence,

Still waiting. . .

As I said, I used to believe what evolutionists say and teach, but now I am looking further at the concept (theory), and realize it has large holes, even from the evidence that is purported to back up thoroughly (absolutely (?)) the theory of evolution. I no longer believe it. And frankly, doubt is cast in me also from looking at discussions about textbooks that are simply wrong and inaccurate in many areas, yet were taught to lower and upper grades as truth to be accepted by students. Sad really.

What you used to believe is absolutely meaningless. You need to present a positive hypothesis based on the evidence NOW, which you have failed to do, and explain why 98% of all scientists support evolution who believe in many diverse religions.

No, textbooks are not simply wrong and inaccurate in many areas. Your assertion is blatantly false based on a religious agenda. The fact that textbooks need to be revised over time simply reflects the advancing knowledge of science. You need to reread my previous post to understand how this is being addressed today. What is realy sad is the bogus science in the Creationists textbooks used in private schools. Also you have failed to respond to the fact that today electronic media updated constantly is replacing most textbooks.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no evidence at all, forget missing evidence.

In this day an age, when you have access to the internet with all this information literally at your fingertips, I can only conclude that you are intellectually dishonest when you say things like that.

"no evidence at all" for evolution....

It's beyond ridiculous.

Total belief. Why not stick to talking about the little adaptations we can see today?

Because we see much more then just that. Closing your eyes, doesn't make it go away.

 

[shunyadragon]

<snip>

The evidence says nothing about what you thought it did. The evidences all fit Scripture. God was right all along.

This statement sums up your view of clinging blindly a primitive ancient Sumerian/Canaanite religious agenda that totally ignores science.

You have not presented any positive physical evidence that the time line of geology does not actually fit the objective evidence.

Still waiting . . .

 

[YoursTrue]

There is no evidence at all, forget missing evidence. Total belief. Why not stick to talking about the little adaptations we can see today?

I agree with you here. Again, that there are similarities in genetic structure does not prove the theory of evolution. It proves that there are similar DNA in creatures. As if God is supposed to use absolutely different genes when He created the earth in order for non-believers in God to come to a different conclusion. This is not to say that some things may not have come about with a direct creative force behind it. To rephrase, it is possible that some things -- what they are I certainly don't know -- have come about simply by the force of energy within the organisms themselves. Such as: two-headed snakes, or a tail coming out of a dog's head.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, that there are similarities in genetic structure does not prove the theory of evolution. It proves that there are similar DNA in creatures.

You do realize that relatedness testing is not so simplistic as "their sequences are similar, therefore they're related", don't you? Have you ever actually taken the time to learn how relatedness testing is conducted?

As if God is supposed to use absolutely different genes when He created the earth in order for non-believers in God to come to a different conclusion.

Well that's kinda the thing about "maybe God just made it that way"....you can say that about anything, all the way up to Last Thursdayism. So it's not really much of a rebuttal to anything.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks.

That's the case with every explanation for every pre-historical event. Since no one was there to directly observe the event, all the evidence for it will be circumstantial, by necessity. But that doesn't mean we can't draw solid, reasonable conclusions about those events. We do that all the time in courts of law, even to the point of sentencing people to death.


Not sure what you mean, since if the evidence is observable, it is testable.

When I say can be observed, I don't mean is observed. What I meant was, if it were possible to observe - which it isn't - is not testable.

I'm very confident in it, because all the available evidence from multiple fields of science is consistent with it. There are even young-earth creationists who are honest enough to admit this to be true...

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well...

...Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason. Faith is enough. If God said it, that should settle it. Maybe that's not enough for your scoffing professor or your non-Christian friends, but it should be enough for you.​

When you say all the available evidence, could you give at least, um... seven of the best, or strongest.
I'm asking you because there are different views, so I want to hear from you, so I can discuss the ones you believe.

I'll respond to the other comment in my next post.

As I explained earlier, because it works. The understanding of the evolutionary history of life on earth has led to new fields of science, new avenues of research, beneficial and productive discoveries, and an increased understanding of the world around us.

Such as? Could you give at least four or five examples.

See above....it works.


Now this is yet another aspect of your way of thinking that doesn't lend itself to science very well. You're thinking of each piece of evidence all by itself, isolated from all the other pieces of evidence, and concluding since that one piece doesn't "prove" UCA all by itself, then it's not really evidence for UCA. That's like getting a jigsaw puzzle that's supposed to be a picture of a tiger, holding up each individual puzzle piece, saying to yourself "this isn't a picture of a tiger", and on that basis concluding that the idea of the puzzle showing a tiger is a fraud or hoax.

With both the puzzle and UCA, it's when you put all the pieces of evidence together that the picture emerges.

I am not doing that at all. Can you read my mind? I wanted to know if you found any piece of evidence, most compelling. I don't understand how you arrived at that view, but isn't that a black and white view.
I'll start counting. #1 black and white view from the man who says I see things in black and white.

 

[shunyadragon]

Thanks.


When I say can be observed, I don't mean is observed. What I meant was, if it were possible to observe - which it isn't - is not testable.

Evolution can be observed through fossils, stratigraphy, observations of life today, and genetics. One the other hand Quantum Mechanics cannot be observed at all. Like all hypothesis in science. Like all sciences one of the primary sources of evidence for evolution is kaling predictions of discoveries needed to confirm the evolutionary lineages in stratigraphy, and the environment the fossils are found. The predictions have been vary accurate.

You have still failed to prest any alternative hypothesis other than the Bible to explain the evidence we have for evolution, and make predictions of what will be found.
Still waiting . . .

 

[Jose Fly]

When I say can be observed, I don't mean is observed. What I meant was, if it were possible to observe - which it isn't - is not testable.

That doesn't make sense.

When you say all the available evidence, could you give at least, um... seven of the best, or strongest.
I'm asking you because there are different views, so I want to hear from you, so I can discuss the ones you believe.

Why? Hasn't this sort of thing been done to death in this forum? We all know exactly how it'll go.....I'll post some items and you'll come up with whatever excuses you can to wave them away, right? I mean, it's not like it's even possible for you to say "That's actually very good evidence for UCA". And of course if I don't post anything, you'll take that as something like "See? You don't have any evidence, 'cause if you did you'd post it!"

So before I decide what to do, please explain your intent and desired outcome.

Such as? Could you give at least four or five examples.

We already discussed examples in our junk DNA discussion. Do you remember me pointing out the sections of the papers you cited, where they explained how evolutionary common ancestry was the framework under which their work was conducted?

I am not doing that at all. Can you read my mind?

That's exactly what you've been doing. You asked "What do you consider the most convincing evidence", which is precisely what prompted me to use the jigsaw puzzle analogy.

I wanted to know if you found any piece of evidence, most compelling. I don't understand how you arrived at that view, but isn't that a black and white view.

Um.....I didn't say anything about black/white thinking in the post you're replying to.

I'll start counting. #1 black and white view from the man who says I see things in black and white.

Please try and pay closer attention to what you're replying to.

 

[dad]

In this day an age, when you have access to the internet with all this information literally at your fingertips, I can only conclude that you are intellectually dishonest when you say things like that.

"no evidence at all" for evolution....

It's beyond ridiculous.

Lots of evidence for evolving NO evidence that evolving is how life got here in all it's splendor and variety.


Focus.

 

[ecco]

Computers do not verify evolution. Period.

Brilliant! Period!

 

[dad]

This statement sums up your view of clinging blindly a primitive ancient Sumerian/Canaanite religious agenda that totally ignores science.

Science ignores ancient records, ancient records do not ignore your religion,

You have not presented any positive physical evidence that the time line of geology does not actually fit the objective evidence.

Of course it fits your faith based times. It also fits a timeline divested completely of your faith based so called dates.

 

[ecco]

So opinions certainly do count in science.

There are uninformed opinions like yours and then there are opinions based on education and knowledge.

You do understand the difference, don't you?

Do you realize that when a reviewer presents an opinion, he or she needs to justify that opinion? A reviewer does not justify an opinion by saying "I read it in a story that was written 4000 years ago".

 

[dad]

I agree with you here. Again, that there are similarities in genetic structure does not prove the theory of evolution. It proves that there are similar DNA in creatures. As if God is supposed to use absolutely different genes when He created the earth in order for non-believers in God to come to a different conclusion. This is not to say that some things may not have come about with a direct creative force behind it. To rephrase, it is possible that some things -- what they are I certainly don't know -- have come about simply by the force of energy within the organisms themselves. Such as: two-headed snakes, or a tail coming out of a dog's head.

If they could prove that only by evolving could any life exist they might have some starting point or leg to stand on. As it is, they do not know that the evolving/adapting we see today is even similar to the evolving that happened long ago. Nor do they know that there was or was not a grand creation event, that started the whole thing rolling. I could not even say they are playing with half a deck!

 

[ecco]

"The problem with this approach, says Tyler Coplen of the US Geological Survey’s Reston Stable Isotope Laboratory in Virginia, is that it perpetuates a misconception. “Teachers are teaching their students that atomic weights are fundamental constants of nature,” he says. …"
Read more: Rewriting the textbooks: The periodic turntable

You loved this part, didn't you? Science admitting science is wrong.

Your posting is just another nail in the coffin of your ignorance and your abject refusal to even try to understand science.

How Has the Periodic Table Changed in the Past 20 Years?
The periodic table is a chart that organizes the arrangement of the known and recognized chemical elements. The organization on the table is based on the atomic weight, electron configurations, and chemical properties of the elements. The elements are shown according to their increasing atomic weights, starting with the smallest and gradually moving up to the highest weights.

Most people have been seeing the periodic table on classroom walls since grade school, and most people probably think it never changes. They're wrong. The periodic table is much more fluid than the majority of people realize. It's still changing today.

The first periodic table in the "rows and columns" form we see today was invented by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869. It included the properties of all of the known elements of that time. Mendeleev predicted that the discovery of some as-yet unknown elements would fill in some of the gaps on his table at some point in the future, and he was correct.

The periodic table has long-since filled in Mendeleev's gaps and has added new elements. It has even changed the weights of other elements. The periodic table is continually being changed as new discoveries are made and new theories are developed to explain the behavior of chemicals.

A huge number of changes were made to the periodic table in the early parts of the 20th century. However, some interesting and significant changes have been made as recently as the past 20 years. For example, two brand new elements were discovered in 2004 and 2006 respectively, and added to the periodic table in 2012. These elements are flerovium (element 114) and livermorium (element 116).

​

The bottom line is that since the 1860s scientists have known that elements have atomic "weights". That has not changed. As knowledge and research methods advanced, scientists realized that the numbers needed revisions. Why is that a problem?

Since around the same time, scientists have known about Evolution. That has not changed. As knowledge and research methods advanced, scientists realized that the methodology of evolution needed revisions. Why is that a problem?

Does your car still look like this...

 

[ecco]

To an extent, it boils down to trial by jury, where the jury can be presented evidence but the evidence can be faulty. Yet convincing. That there are genetic similarities in animals separate but distinct does not prove evolution. As I said, I used to believe what evolutionists say and teach, but now I am looking further at the concept (theory), and realize it has large holes, even from the evidence that is purported to back up thoroughly (absolutely (?)) the theory of evolution. I no longer believe it. And frankly, doubt is cast in me also from looking at discussions about textbooks that are simply wrong and inaccurate in many areas, yet were taught to lower and upper grades as truth to be accepted by students. Sad really.

Nonsense! Your disbelief of Evolution is based on one and only one thing - your fundamentalist reading of Genesis.

 

[nPeace]

I gotta ask (and please don't take offense because this is a genuine question)....is English your first language?Why do you ask?

Ha. You must have a reason for asking. I think my English is great. So, why do you ask?

Okay, that's very helpful. To be clear, you don't believe God intentionally "designs" genetic sequences.

So he created geneless cells?
I am confused as to what you are not understanding. It seems you are looking for detail upon detail of what God did. Help me here. What are you really asking?

Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. One thing that's become very apparent is that you have a unique way of expressing yourself that tends to lead to confusion about what you mean, as your exchanges with others over the last couple of days show.

Me? Okay. What about you?
I have a hard time understanding your line communication.
Perhaps it's an English problem. English tend to be tricky, depending.

All I can say is, I have absolutely no intention of twisting or warping what you've said. It wouldn't make sense for me to do so, since my intent here is to understand your viewpoint.

I sometimes get accused of quoting someone out of context. I hope you don't think you are immune to that.
All I ask, is that if you are going to quote me, in response to something said, please put the quote in full, because you may warp my response by chopping off sections that changes the response to reflect something entirely different.
Is that too much to ask? Am I being unreasonable?

To me, that comes across as rather vague and not very informative. That's why I keep asking follow-up questions on this topic. So let's see if we can clear this up. Here is what I think you believe....

In creating organisms like bacteria, God created them with the ability to adapt, including the potential to adapt ways of resisting antibiotics.

It's not necessarily a case of adapting ways of resisting antibiotics.
The cell is designed with mechanisms to detect invaders. It has mechanisms for quickly removing or neutralizing those invaders. Adaptation may occur then, yes.
That's my understanding.

What I don't yet understand is what that specifically means. Do you believe God designed bacteria to undergo random mutations (as part of the means of adaptation)?

I don't believe the ability to adapt is in mutations. I've been trying to explain that to you for the past millennia (when we were discussing mutations), but as I said, you don't get it.
It seems to me, you could only see one side - the one you believe to be the only way.

Can genes adapt? I believe so.
Fish Turn on Genes to Adapt to Climate Change
Can Population Genetics Adapt to Rapid Evolution?
While I am not saying how it happens, or that this is the case in all situations, the genes are an amazing design, which I believe is the reason scientists cannot agree on the mechanism. for their Darwinian belief.
Isn't that part of the reason some don't support the Modern Synthesis, and have create a "battle royal" by proposing the Extended Synthesis?
Speaking of which... I didn't get a blow-by-blow commentary, but I heard when this blow landed...
[Michael Lynch] went so far as charging his scientific opponents of engaging in little more than uninformed musings comparable to those of intelligent design creationists.
I hope no one gets seriously hurt... other than ego.
I wonder if Lynch accused the ES proponents of having a religious agenda... or was that just a ID agenda.

Do you believe the MS works fine, or do you think there is a need for the ES? Do you think it's possible the two can merge, or would the MS need a complete makeover?

This and much of the other ongoing controversies, and debates over how a theory that is such a well established fact of science has so many unanswered questions and squabbles on how the idea works in practical, reminds me of the counsel of Nicaea.
The only thing different is the garb, but they look quite similar.
There is a philosophical side to what believers in Darwinism present in theory.

Do you believe God designed the process of natural selection? Do you believe God designed those two processes to work together so that bacteria can adapt to changing conditions?

I don't know if there are actually religious people that will tell you, when you every flash of lightning you see, God created it; every lightning bolt, God created; every snowflake... every raindrop that goes pitter patter on your window pane... every storm, and hurricane, God created... every time you stump your toe, God created.
No Fly. I don't believe God is in heaven tinkering with every thing on earth. He could, but he is selective.
He only alters things that has a bearing on his overall will, and purpose.

God setup things at the beginning, to work according to his will.
Think of a designer. He will set up his design with everything in place. So if it's a home, when the home owners move in, they would not see a contractor turn up and say he needs to have his team tweak the sprinkler system, or...

To illustrate... A designer can design and set up his creation to function without the designer's tinkering. It can be random, or specific, or a combo.

God fixed the earth in place, and designed living things to act according to the instructions and design. Environmental factors play a role in the way(s) that they may change.
God has acted perhaps on two occasions, that would have effected change, according to the Bible.

That's probably one of the main obstacles to our discussion. You're trying to score debate points, whereas I'm just trying to understand. So your questions aren't really asked in good faith, and are instead attempts to "stump the evolutionist".

I hope you appreciate how that kinda makes me reluctant to bother answering. Because under that approach, if I give an answer, your tendency will be to discard it and just move on to the next question.....and play that out until you find questions that I can't answer.

I am not aware that it is a fact that when someone tries to get the perspective of the person they are conversing with, that means they are "trying to score debate points".
I know it is a very good way of communication, because it reduces the confusion that could arise because of one person assuming, and assuming wrong.
For example... I may meet someone who says the believe the trinity, and instead of first getting their perspective on the trinity, I assume their view is the main one, and start down a line that both confuses the person, and gives them the impression that I am only interested in my position, and not theirs.
All because of my having a black and white view.
#2 black and white view from the man who says I see things in black and white.

Again, you and I have very different ways of expressing ourselves.

Obviously.

I will definitely keep that in mind with your future questions. It's disappointing, but I appreciate you being honest.

And if you'd prefer that I change my approach and start debating you more than engaging in a discussion, let me know. I can certainly do that.


I guess. In the future, I'd suggest that you phrase your questions in a way that makes it clear that you're only looking for my perspective.


Like I keep saying, it's really hard for me to believe that in reality, all Witnesses are both experts in evolutionary biology and evolution denialists.....especially given the discussions I've had.


Okay, will do.

So far, I think I've actually learned quite a bit. It's obvious to me that you and I think very differently, communicate very differently, and approach these discussions very differently. Nothin' wrong with that, and actually it's one of the main reasons why I do this. I like to find out what makes people tick...what motivates them to certain viewpoints. Our exchange has been very enlightening in that regard, so thanks!

Me too.

 

[ecco]

There is no evidence at all,

I agree with you here.

WOW! Two Christian fundamentalists agreeing with each other that there is no evidence for evolution. WhodaThunkit?

This just proves that the only reason to disbelieve ToE is to blindly believe in Genesis.

This just proves that some people would rather believe a thousands year old creation story than believe the accumulated knowledge of mankind.




I do realize that reading and understanding Genesis is a lot easier than actually getting an education. Maybe that's part of the appeal.

 

[ecco]

God fixed the earth in place

Uh huh.

 

[nPeace]

That doesn't make sense.


Why? Hasn't this sort of thing been done to death in this forum? We all know exactly how it'll go.....I'll post some items and you'll come up with whatever excuses you can to wave them away, right? I mean, it's not like it's even possible for you to say "That's actually very good evidence for UCA". And of course if I don't post anything, you'll take that as something like "See? You don't have any evidence, 'cause if you did you'd post it!"

So before I decide what to do, please explain your intent and desired outcome.


We already discussed examples in our junk DNA discussion. Do you remember me pointing out the sections of the papers you cited, where they explained how evolutionary common ancestry was the framework under which their work was conducted?


That's exactly what you've been doing. You asked "What do you consider the most convincing evidence", which is precisely what prompted me to use the jigsaw puzzle analogy.


Um.....I didn't say anything about black/white thinking in the post you're replying to.


Please try and pay closer attention to what you're replying to.

Interestingly, you can ask questions of me, but when I ask you questions, they are too hard to give an answer.. especially after making claims.
No problem. It appears we don't understand each other... and I will take it, you can't back up your claims.

Remember this.