How do you define evolution?

[rational experiences]

By a non science human practice.

 

[YoursTrue]

I've made mention of Tiktaalik several times now, and have yet to receive any response.

...

You want response that it means evolution is the way all life forms have come about? I believe what the Bible says -- God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning. How it all came about other than seeing life around me and what the Bible says about it, I can't say. Does that mean I don't think viruses mutate? No, I think viruses mutate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who said genetic similarities do not show one's relation to a family member? Not me. I'm thinking you did not understand the point, but thanks anyway, so in kindness, I won't continue. Thanks anyway.

You said that essentially when you said that he had "no evidence". Creationists, as a rule, do not understand the concept of evidence. Instead of saying the obviously false "you have no evidence" it would be much wiser to ask what evidence exists.

Now I can honestly say that no creationist has ever offered scientific evidence to me for his beliefs. And that is because they do not tend to understand the concept.


One of my favorite questions to ask creationists when they claim to have scientific evidence is "What possible observation based upon the merits of your concept would refute it?" If they cannot answer that question by definition they do not have scientific evidence. To have scientific evidence one must be willing to put one's ideas to the test.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You want response that it means evolution is the way all life forms have come about? I believe what the Bible says -- God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning. How it all came about other than seeing life around me and what the Bible says about it, I can't say. Does that mean I don't think viruses mutate? No, I think viruses mutate.

But Genesis is demonstrably wrong if interpreted literally. It still works as fable and other literary tools that make it useful for instruction. But we can show that the events in it did not happen as it is written there.

The following verse does not say or even imply that all of the Bible is literally true:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

— 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've made mention of Tiktaalik several times now, and have yet to receive any response.

Good luck!

Indeed. I brought it up countless times in threads here. Never met anyone that even tried to address the point of how people were able to find it by prediction.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who said genetic similarities do not show one's relation to a family member? Not me. I'm thinking you did not understand the point, but thanks anyway, so in kindness, I won't continue. Thanks anyway.

So you agree that DNA allows us to determine kinship / common ancestry?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You want response that it means evolution is the way all life forms have come about? I believe what the Bible says -- God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning. How it all came about other than seeing life around me and what the Bible says about it, I can't say. Does that mean I don't think viruses mutate? No, I think viruses mutate.

Then what are you doing trying to argue against evolution?

What is the point? You have already decided that your bible is correct and that you are not going to care either way what science and evidence has to say on the matter.
You have put yourself in a position where any discussion on the topic is an exercise in futility.


You don't care about what is actually true. You only care about upholding your beliefs.



Good luck with that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Now I can honestly say that no creationist has ever offered scientific evidence to me for his beliefs. And that is because they do not tend to understand the concept.

Nor do they care about it.
That's precisely the entire problem. You will never convince them with evidence, because they don't care about evidence. In fact, many of them will purposefully avoid evidence, realizing it threatens their beliefs.
This is why they insist on strawmen. Sometimes I think that it's not us that they try to convince with their fallacious apologetics, but rather themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You want response that it means evolution is the way all life forms have come about? I believe what the Bible says -- God created the heavens and the earth. In the beginning. How it all came about other than seeing life around me and what the Bible says about it, I can't say. Does that mean I don't think viruses mutate? No, I think viruses mutate.

What I want is a response to the fact that researchers were able to predict where they would find Tiktallik in the fossil record, and then went out and found it, right where they thought it would be.
Remember, you keep claiming that scientists can't make any predictions related to the theory of evolution.

I don't care what the Bible says about scientific matters and nobody else should either, unless you can demonstrate the claims within it are accurate. I'm going to follow the scientific evidence where it leads, unlike yourself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Who said genetic similarities do not show one's relation to a family member? Not me. I'm thinking you did not understand the point, but thanks anyway, so in kindness, I won't continue. Thanks anyway.

You do. Constantly.

"You and science may say what you want. You offer your opinion, and I'm sure it coincides with that of many (probably), but you offer no evidence in your statement. Next step will be for you to call me ignorant. Because I say you offer no evidence, only your assertion and opinion. And so goes it -- have a good evening. By the way, fossils and dna are not evidence of your assertion. It's evidence that there is somewhat similar dna among the various species, but that is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence that there is similar dna among many. Sometimes more, sometimes less."


I definitely understand the point I've been trying to drive home to you for about 37 pages now. I wish you would.

 

[YoursTrue]

You do. Constantly.

"You and science may say what you want. You offer your opinion, and I'm sure it coincides with that of many (probably), but you offer no evidence in your statement. Next step will be for you to call me ignorant. Because I say you offer no evidence, only your assertion and opinion. And so goes it -- have a good evening. By the way, fossils and dna are not evidence of your assertion. It's evidence that there is somewhat similar dna among the various species, but that is not evidence of evolution. It's evidence that there is similar dna among many. Sometimes more, sometimes less."


I definitely understand the point I've been trying to drive home to you for about 37 pages now. I wish you would.

I read about the differences of dna between gorillas and humans. So I am answering you here about my question about ancestry and dna:
Gorillas and humans do not have the same exact genes in number, do they? So now, regardless of the intricacies of the genome sequences, can an analyst tell from the genetics, what's a chimp and what's human? A Yes or No answer would be appreciated. Then perhaps we can go on.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I read about the differences of dna between gorillas and humans. So I am answering you here about my question about ancestry and dna:
Gorillas and humans do not have the same exact genes in number, do they? So now, regardless of the intricacies of the genome sequences, can an analyst tell from the genetics, what's a chimp and what's human? A Yes or No answer would be appreciated. Then perhaps we can go on.

Here's a link I've provided to you about 3 times now, that explains the degrees of relatedness between humans and the other primates. You didn't address it the last 3 times I posted it, so let's try now, shall we?

Genetics

Give it a good read.


"DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read about the differences of dna between gorillas and humans. So I am answering you here about my question about ancestry and dna:
Gorillas and humans do not have the same exact genes in number, do they? So now, regardless of the intricacies of the genome sequences, can an analyst tell from the genetics, what's a chimp and what's human? A Yes or No answer would be appreciated. Then perhaps we can go on.

It is easy to tell what genes are a human's and which ones are a chimp's. The ones that chimps have that humans do not are chimp genes and vice versa. The vast majority of genes will be shared because we have a common ancestor. Those are neither chimp genes nor human genes. They are our, as in human and chimp, genes.

 

[ecco]

Does that mean I don't think viruses mutate? No, I think viruses mutate.

So you believe that viruses are life (like ants) rather than non-life (like rocks).

 

[YoursTrue]

Here's a link I've provided to you about 3 times now, that explains the degrees of relatedness between humans and the other primates. You didn't address it the last 3 times I posted it, so let's try now, shall we?

Genetics

Give it a good read.


"DNA is thus especially important in the study of evolution. The amount of difference in DNA is a test of the difference between one species and another – and thus how closely or distantly related they are.

While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, and humans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes."

Let's try again, perhaps rephrasing will help? Do gorillas and humans have the same number of genes? It should be an easy answer for you. Yes, or no. Do gorillas and humans have the same number of genes?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is easy to tell what genes are a human's and which ones are a chimp's. The ones that chimps have that humans do not are chimp genes and vice versa. The vast majority of genes will be shared because we have a common ancestor. Those are neither chimp genes nor human genes. They are our, as in human and chimp, genes.

Thank you (I think). So, because some of the genes are said to be shared, now I ask, what does that mean that they are said to be shared? I suppose it means (and correct me if I'm wrong), these particular genes are alike?

 

[YoursTrue]

It is easy to tell what genes are a human's and which ones are a chimp's. The ones that chimps have that humans do not are chimp genes and vice versa. The vast majority of genes will be shared because we have a common ancestor. Those are neither chimp genes nor human genes. They are our, as in human and chimp, genes.

OK -- what--excuse me please? You say the vast majority of genes will be shared because we have a common ancestor. OK, I can see the reasoning behind that. But what does this mean? "Those are neither chimp genes nor human genes. They are our, as in human and chimp, genes." (?)​

 

[rational experiences]

Human egotists were proven to be life's destroyer by inventive thesis.

Pretence science as fake purpose stated by my observations of any natural living self owned form. By. Human. Not by data.

Imposing is data. Observation is natural human first.

Intent.

Is your intent to just establish I am corrected as a theist or.....
Is your intent to establish some idea about finding something as a state?

You know a creator source!

As any human using common sense knows whatever form you observe is its owned form.

Then there is applied human coercion.

Believe a story I want to describe.

Basic teaching in life. Let's all just commune as natural beings. Where is your thought then? Is it ego expressing itself or being where it should exist!. Just communing.

The reason for religious practice versus life destruction by intent of saying you will find a source of all being with the intent only.

And the same comment is established to every single body you look at. The exact same motivation. The source.

Yet you are not logically looking at any source.

As real is real. Your intent is not to accept real.

Theism is about pretending you are the creator by expressed advice. As if expressed advice owned the presence...lying every moment of the applied defined motive.

Arguing says two by two is science. 2 X 2 and Phi.

An ape for example is not a number it is a living being.

Two of its kind apes have two ape babies. Self being of one form as continuance.

That claim was with God.

Meaning O planet one. Heavens surrounding planet one yet different. Then two by two of every species as you cannot count a species unless it exists.

As you have to observe it to name it.

Why the teaching all things were with God as you have to observe them first. Just a theoretic teaching against theists.

 

[YoursTrue]

You said that essentially when you said that he had "no evidence". Creationists, as a rule, do not understand the concept of evidence. Instead of saying the obviously false "you have no evidence" it would be much wiser to ask what evidence exists.

Now I can honestly say that no creationist has ever offered scientific evidence to me for his beliefs. And that is because they do not tend to understand the concept.​

One of my favorite questions to ask creationists when they claim to have scientific evidence is "What possible observation based upon the merits of your concept would refute it?" If they cannot answer that question by definition they do not have scientific evidence. To have scientific evidence one must be willing to put one's ideas to the test.​

OK, this is a long one, much as I don't like reading long posts myself, here is this one. Sorry.
As I have been reading more about science, it is true that when I went to school I was not taught that nothing is proven in science. But then I was not a science major. So I guess I really didn't care. You've heard of Richard Feynman, right? I have been reading some of his writings, and will listen to his lectures in part. I like the way he thinks. Even though I don't agree with him on some major issues.
But again, I gotta tell you that I believed everything as true that I was taught in high school and college. (I really did. I really didn't question anything much, although I wondered for a while about God's existence but did not receive satisfactory answers, so came to the conclusion that God doesn't exist -- yes, I changed my mind about that also.)
Getting back to science, though, I did well enough on my tests (not that this proves anything other than I answered the questions correctly, right?) to get good marks and offer of scholarship plus other honors. Not just accepted it, but believed what I was taught to be the truth. It really wasn't until much later that I began to look at things with a more questioning mind. Now I must say that I can understand why some people believe in the scientific theory of evolution, but I no longer accept it as the truth and nothing but because of certain major obstacles.
One is that while there are fossils, there is no actual, literal (and by literal I mean real-time video type surveillance) footage of any form evolving from a form such as fish that live exclusively in water to land-roving forms. There are other issues, but that is one particular issue. And so--despite claims of fossils as substantiating the theory--and I can understand the logic that many would agree to--but yes, there is that gap of proof. (oops, I used that word again) Literal proof. Not assumptive proof. But then -- is there, or is there not proof of evolution? I believe at this point that some would say yes.
Fossil similarities, what is said to be shared genes do not now show me evolution is a fact. But I thank you for your endeavor to get me to believe the idea that life forms evolved, or came about without an intelligent designer behind these things. So -- whether forms evolved from fish to land-rovers--other than fossils found used to evidence the theory--at this point I no longer can accept that these things just happened to happen.​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you (I think). So, because some of the genes are said to be shared, now I ask, what does that mean that they are said to be shared? I suppose it means (and correct me if I'm wrong), these particular genes are alike?

Yes. I am sure that you have seen the claims of how similar the chimp genome is to ours. Just as your genome is ever more similar to your parents. The same science that allows for paternity tests and identifying suspects in crimes is the same science that tells us that we are related to chimps.