If Theory of Darwin is fact, not theory, then Darwin Theory is wrong in its title already?

[Valjean]

Methinks you are confusing dark matter and dark energy.

I think he's just completely in the dark.

 

[Regiomontanus]

So basically, what we're saying is that it's impossible to build cars, because we don't know if it's true if iron was formed in stars. Got it. Cars are fake news. /s

Maybe that made sense to you?

 

[Regiomontanus]

The point remains that evolution doesn't have anything to do with cosmology - aside from the trivial sense in which all science is connected to the material universe, that is. Evolution stands regardless of how the elements came to exist and cosmology stands regardless of whether evolution happened on Earth or not. Different fields of study and different evidence.

It is you who seems to not understand the science.

 

[Polymath257]

Hello. Of course, as you likely know, the Steady-State theory (and v 2.0, QSST) are long dead. That our universe had a beginning and a history is firmly established. So there is a connection. No, the actual process of nucleosynthesis does not concern the evolutionary biologist. But that all of Creation is connected is (should be) obvious.

Yes, that is clear, but beside the point being made. HOW the elements came into existence is irrelevant for the biological theory of evolution. And that you have agreed to. That the elements exist is very relevant.

Yes, I am quite aware of the demise of the steady state theory, but I was making a point on the irrelevance of cosmology on evolutionary theory.

 

[Ouroboros]

Maybe that made sense to you?

Velocity, gravity, friction, combustion, all of it depends on material, energy, forces, all the things that we know exists in this universe. The same forces and materials and energies we depend upon for Evolution. And that's pretty much how far the relationship exists between evolution and cosmology. The same exist for all theories relating to car manufacturing. If cosmology is wrong and that means evolution is wrong, then car manufacturing is also wrong. Can't be done. They have to know how and where iron comes from to make a chassis.

You see how dumb such argument is?

The theory of evolution is based on the forces and materials that we do know exists currently, here, right now in this world.

 

[Valjean]

So this Engineer/Designer/Creator made us more closely related to bananas than honey bees.

Go figure - just make sure you use HuffPo as your scientific source!

Weird thing - clicked on Honeybee link at Huffpo - there was no story in that volume of NatGeo that mentioned honeybees; clicked on the banana link - goes to some UK tabloid site, that just lists the number and provides no source.

Great creation science!

He's sending us on a wild goose chase.
So what if we're more closely related to the ancestor of a banana than the ancestor of a bee? That doesn't affect the ToE a jot or tittle.

 

[Ouroboros]

So I'm baking bread right now. I know how to do it. I have some experience doing it. I know how certain things work and what outcome to expect. But I don't know where the wheat came from. I don't know the chemical processes happening. I do understand a little about the yeast and sourdough fermentation, but even there, I couldn't explain much if I wanted to. If cosmology is completely wrong and God created the atoms and the yeast... oh, darn! Then the whole principle falls apart and I don't know if I can bake anymore!!!

 

[Valjean]

Everything Darwin said and thought about evolution and everything that came since has been nothing but a bunch of hocus pocus bs.

What evidence do you have for this extraordinary declaration? Incredulity? Ignorance? Indoctrination?

Millions of well educated scientists, from many unrelated disciplines, who have studied and tested the predictions of the ToE, find it valid.
Is there some massive, worldwide conspiracy afoot? How have so many unrelated scientists under scrutiny by so many other people, managed to keep this secret?

You want to start at the Big Bang and relate it to all other disciplines. You seem to think that if you can find flaw in the cosmology, all derivatives are automatically obviated. That's OK, but unworkable.
By your reasoning automotive engineering, pastry baking and well drilling are subdivisions of cosmology and their technology invalid.

 

[tas8831]

Actually, it is possible. The mind-trick here though is to not think linear.

I haven't looked into this specifically, but I assume it's explained with humans are closer to a shared ancestor with the honey bees than shared ancestor to banans, but it's just that the distance on the different branches make the path we'd have to travel back to the ancestor and then to the bee is longer than it would be to trace it to the shared ancestor with bananas and then the bananas themselves. That's what I assume it is.

Or put it this way: (distance as genetic change, number of mutations, chromosomal change, etc)
A. distance human to shared ancestor with humans and bees
B. distance bee to shared ancestor to humans and bees
C. distance banana to shared ancestor to humans, bees, and bananas
D. distance humans to shared ancestor to humans, bees, and bananas

A+B > C+D

Still, A < D, evolution still intact.

Don't quote me on this though. It's just what I suspect it is.

Makes sense. And, of course, that @Hockeycowboy thinks mere 'genetic similarity' is what is used in inferring phylogeny, well.... never mind...

I actually wasted the time to check out @Hockeycowboy's claim (or rather his confidence in a HuffPo article).
The link for the honeybees did not take me to a NatGeo article, but I searched and found this:

Insights into social insects from the genome of the honeybee Apis mellifera

"Comparison of the 2,404 single-copy orthologues present in exactly one copy in each of the insects and in human revealed that the mean sequence identity between honeybee and human is considerably higher than that of fly and human (47.5% versus 44.5%, with t-test significance of 10−11, see Fig. 6 and Supplementary Fig. 6) and also higher than between mosquito and human (46.6%). "​

One will note the number of genes compared - 2404 (out of an estimated 10,000 in the honey bee). This means that of the ~20,000 genes humans have, there are 2404 that have orthologues in the honeybee, that is, genes that we share with honeybees via common ancestry. When these orthologues were sequenced and compared, they were ~44% (not 44% - that was flies) identical. But 2404/10,000 is but 24% (and 2404 out of 20,000 is 12%) of the honey bee genes have a match with humans, so already the numbers indicate something other than what they are often portrayed. Also, I bolded what I did intentionally - they specifically looked at orthologues that are present in only 1 copy. Why does that matter, well, many genes are present in more than one copy, sometimes, a lot of copies. They looked only at orthologues that were present in a single copy. They had their reasons for doing that, which I am not concerned about, but it would appear that this may be the source for the 44% claim.

For bananas, the 50% similarity link went to the Mirror, where there was just a list of crazy 'facts', some of which appear not to be facts. I was unable to find any actual scientific publications on this (I did not search very hard, I must admit) - lots of internet 'factoids' of course. I did find out some relevant actual facts however -
bananas apparently have more genes that humans (~36,000, but with a much smaller overall amount of DNA than us, only about 400 million bps), which shouldn't be a huge surprise, given that one of the common mechanisms for speciation in plants is genome duplication (any plant people out there, feel free to correct me). Since bananas have ~3x the number of genes as honey bees, the relevant issue here is orthologues. I came across a blog post by a knowledgeable fellow that already did the leg work -

Seems that, in real life, only 17% of genes are shared between bananas and humans.

Now, there were more orthologues, which, given the restrictions in the honey bee paper does not really surprise me, but the sequence identity was not indicated. It comes down to whether one compares numbers of genes, or actual sequence identity, but neither of those appear to rescue the claims.

So, it looks like @Hockeycowboy is refuted before he even gets started....

 

[tas8831]

How pathetic. questfortruth has had the meaning of a scientific theory explained to him dozens of times, yet he CONSTANTLY starts the exact same OP over and over again. Truly sad.

They do that.

One of our old pals that claimed that there was such a thing as the "Eve gene" on here a few months ago had it explained and documented very clearly that there is no such thing (his own link proved he was wrong), but I saw that he had brought it up again on another forum just a couple of weeks ago.

Interesting psychology among the creationists.

 

[Ouroboros]

To be fair though, there's one thing that evolution depends on from cosmology, and that is the age of Earth. So if we can disprove cosmology's claim that Earth is very old, then we might be forced to reconsider evolution, but so far, everything points to an old Earth. And it's not just cosmology doing that, but geology and many other sciences supporting old Earth.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You just do not understand the science involved here. That's OK . I mean, if you don't see the connection between, say the creation of the elements in the periodic table, and the fact that many of those elements are what you are made of then...well that is your problem. If you are interested in learning about cosmology though, let me know. God bless.

Wow. Way to PROJECT NONSENSE into NOTHING I actually said...

Evolution says nothing about how elements came to exist in the Universe. It begins with, all the elements existing, on Earth, as we know them today.

None of what you claim? Makes any sense... I'd wager $20, that I know far more about biological evolution than you do. I was a biology major in college, after all... and it's been my hobby ever since. (I did not finish college as a bioscience-- I took a "left turn" into computers instead.)

But nevermind that. You seem to think that MAGIC is somehow involved here...?

Nope. No magic needed in the Universe. Ergo? No god is needed either.

And I know the DOG WHISTLE of "god bless"-- I know what it means.

It's basically saying to me? "Eff You" I used to be a christian, you see... I still remember the lingo.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hello. Of course, as you likely know, the Steady-State theory (and v 2.0, QSST) are long dead. That our universe had a beginning and a history is firmly established. So there is a connection. No, the actual process of nucleosynthesis does not concern the evolutionary biologist. But that all of Creation is connected is (should be) obvious.

You invoke MAGIC, where there is zero evidence for actual magic.

Gotcha.

 

[tas8831]

According to my Religion: Big Bang Theory and Cosmology are part of Evolution plot because the God of the Bible has created the Universe 7000 years ago.

According to my non-religion, they are not.

Check and mate.

 

[Polymath257]

To be fair though, there's one thing that evolution depends on from cosmology, and that is the age of Earth. So if we can disprove cosmology's claim that Earth is very old, then we might be forced to reconsider evolution, but so far, everything points to an old Earth. And it's not just cosmology doing that, but geology and many other sciences supporting old Earth.

And I would not consider that to be part of standard cosmology. At best, the connection is that we need the sun to be *at least* second generation so there has been time for the basic elements to form. If it were found that carbon (or other 'heavy' elements) hadn't been formed until quite recently, there would be an issue, but not otherwise that I can see.

 

[gnostic]

The spiritual realm can not be measured by Instruments. The action on the Natural Realm can be measured. Thus, Dark Matter is spiritual.

No it isn’t.

Dark matter is natural because it have gravitational effects on spacetime, on photons (eg gravitational lensing, bending of light), and on motions of galaxies and stars.

According to the measurements of masses from the Planck space mission (2009-2013), it is estimated that the universe only contained 4.9% of ordinary matters; 26.8% of dark matters, and the rest of the mass from dark energy (69.3%).

 

[gnostic]

Everything Darwin said and thought about evolution and everything that came since has been nothing but a bunch of hocus pocus bs.

So you are saying, biodiversity don’t exist?

Then how would you explain biodiversity of life? What alternative explanation that are supported by the evidence?

How do you account for the current species of animals and plants not existing (as fossils) in all the strata of rocks? Why do we see earlier species that don’t exist today?

Unless, you have better explanation than “God did it” creation BS, accompanied with verifiable evidences, then you would prefer people to remain ignorant and oblivious history of the natural world.

 

[Ouroboros]

And I would not consider that to be part of standard cosmology. At best, the connection is that we need the sun to be *at least* second generation so there has been time for the basic elements to form. If it were found that carbon (or other 'heavy' elements) hadn't been formed until quite recently, there would be an issue, but not otherwise that I can see.

And the age of Earth in cosmology is more of a sidenote. The key point in cosmology is how planets are formed, and particular data for specific objects is just some fun extras. Cosmology wouldn't change or be wrong even if Earth was 10 years old or 10 billion years old. It would be in trouble though if Earth suddenly appeared to be 10 trillion years old.

But still, Evolution requires the old Earth, and that's pretty much it. If the elements, forces, and all other natural phenomenon came from big bang of from a big guy, it doesn't really matter since through observation and study of nature as such--as we know it to be--evolution has been proven to be true.

 

[gnostic]

How do we get from talk of Evolution, to that of cosmology of the universe?

How speciation of life occurred on Earth, have no effect of the cosmology.

 

[Ouroboros]

How do we get from talk of Evolution, to that of cosmology of the universe?

The OP:

- No, google "Cosmology Crisis" then. The Theory of Evolution is defined as having the following sections: Theory of Big Bang+Theory of Cosmic Evolution+Theory of Darwin+Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinism is the application of Evolution to Socium.