Just Accidental?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There is no proof that any creature is a common ancestor of any living thing

Nor need there be.

There is no burden of proof to say that that is the way things appear to be and how they might be.

If you, however, say that it cannot be, then you have incurred a burden of proof - assuming that you care to be taken seriously.

I see that you're still evading the tough questions, Here they are again for the third time:

You guys never answer my questions because I believe you can't.

That's one of your signature bad faith disputation techniques as I indicated to you on this thread yesterday, and you ignored it again. So, I'll repeat what I posted then:

How many times have I asked you with no answer forthcoming from you why we would throw away a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for mountains of data, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition for an idea that can do none of that? You are silent because you have no answer.

How many times have you been asked what barrier would prevent lesser degrees of evolution that occur over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes? Crickets.

How many times have you been asked to explain why you posit a god to account for a living cell that you find too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated when what you are doing is proposing an entity also undesigned and uncreated that would need to be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell to account for it? Sound of a pin dropping.

How many times have you been asked to define what a kind is so that we may know exactly what you are saying never happens - one kind evolving into another? Sound of distant rooster crowing.

 

[scott777]

All your fractals prove is that undesigned things "can" look pretty. But they have no function apart from looking pretty. That is not the point.....

Nature exhibits design and functionality that cannot be "accidental"......that is the point. The fact that beauty is even appreciated by human beings is a function of the eyes and its interaction with the brain.
One cannot exist for any logical reason, without the other. It is very evident to me that they were made for each other....in much the same way that greenery can be beautiful and enhance any landscape, but it also serves a function...to feed the creatures who live there. Functionality is the product of design. Design, when it serves a specific function is planned and requires a planner. That the planner made things beautiful is a bonus. He didn't have to....we can exist without beauty. That is what is logical to me.

Yes, I agree functionality is the product of design, because by definition function implies purpose. The statement has nothing to do with our discussion.

But you have agreed that fractals, which are pretty, have no function. And you agree that a simple thing can produce a more complex thing without being designed (I think). Would you extend that to physics, that those laws could produce something pretty like a snowflake, without design?

 

[Profound Realization]

Yes, I know. But it's not my argument. It's the creationists arguing for such a barrier



I make no such claim. My claim is that there is no known barrier to evolution. Those who say there is need to explain or demonstrate what it is if they wish to be believed.



The same way a rock knows how to fall.

Unfortunately, you do make such claims. It is precisely your argument. All scientific research, in laboratories/breeding, etc. reach barriers.

Gene flow is prevented, sterility occurs, inability to produce viable gametes, difference in chromosome structures prevent appropriate pairing and segregation during meiosis, morphological differences, differing times of fertility, mating behaviors, psychological rejection of sperm cells, etc. All in correlation with the large genetic difference amongst species. All observed via experimentation. The max limitations are always reached in laboratories/breeding. This is not a "Creationist" claim. Scientists/breeders themselves all reach these maximum limitation barriers. These are well known and observed "barriers." Even worse, these are humans with "intelligence" that cannot perform such, but "stupid" Nature is alleged to have performed such.

So, it is on you to provide the factual truths of how these observed and demonstrated "barriers" were and can be broken. I'm not going to be dishonest and ask you for evidence, sinceI know that there is none. However, if you wish to believe like most others that they "can" or "may" be broken "given enough time," there is nothing wrong with faith/believing such. All that does though is give "natural selection" an all-powerful characteristic that can invent and wish and imagine whatever the human mind wants it to.

As far as your "rock" analogy, I'm just going to let that go. Information in systems is beyond the scope of many.

 

[Deeje]

There is no burden of proof to say that that is the way things appear to be and how they might be.

If you, however, say that it cannot be, then you have incurred a burden of proof - assuming that you care to be taken seriously.

The way things "appear to be" or "might be" is not an excuse to infer that that is the way it" had" to be. Presupposing that your data is correct without any real substantive proof for your claim, places evolutionary science in the category of a belief system. It is so confident that its beliefs are correct and yet the evidence is all supposition based on its own biased interpretation of the "evidence".
You can't prove your belief system any more than I can.

How many times have I asked you with no answer forthcoming from you why we would throw away a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for mountains of data, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition for an idea that can do none of that? You are silent because you have no answer.

How many times have I quoted from the many links posted as "mountains of evidence" and shown how misleading they are? Those "mountains" are nothing but pathetic molehills. Its a con of massive proportions. The Emperor has no clothes, but he is parading around like he's regaled in splender. People are laughing at the incredible ego he displays whilst exposing his complete nakedness.

How many times have you been asked what barrier would prevent lesser degrees of evolution that occur over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes? Crickets.

A barrier has to exist because science can only 'suggest' that it doesn't. Not one shred of solid evidence exists to demonstrate that any species has ever mutated or 'evolved' outside of its taxonomic family and you know it. Adaptation at best provides variety within a species, but none have ever been seen any change from one family into a completely new one. Have they? Even when their Hawthorn Flies separated into species that did not eventually interbreed, they remained Hawthorn Flies and never became anything else. Same with the stickleback fish....bacteria and anything else you can name. They always remain in their taxonomic family.

How many times have you been asked to explain why you posit a god to account for a living cell that you find too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated when what you are doing is proposing an entity also undesigned and uncreated that would need to be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell to account for it? Sound of a pin dropping.

Every living this on this material earth in this material universe had to have a beginning. Science knows this. It also knows that in this realm, all life has to spring from pre-existing life. It knows of no exceptions....from the simplest forms of life to the most complex.

In the realm occupied by the Creator, there is nothing material. The Creator is a spirit. Do we comprehend what spirit beings are? Does science even acknowledge the existence of such a realm with beings that are living a very different kind of life? Does their lack of acknowledgement necessarily mean that it is impossible for such a realm and such beings to exist, just because they can't test for them or have not experienced them personally?

Do black holes exist? Does anti-matter exist? What is still for science to discover?

I cannot tell you "what" God is apart from what his word tells us. Would I even understand if he supplied that information? The glimpses that the Bible gives us of these beings and their realm, left humans struggling to describe what they were shown. It wasn't one person, but many, and over thousands of years.

How many times have you been asked to define what a kind is so that we may know exactly what you are saying never happens - one kind evolving into another? Sound of distant rooster crowing.

A "kind" is apparently a taxonomic family as far as I can tell. The Bible suggests that these are creatures who can reproduce. When the Bible says that all living things reproduce "according to their kind" then I challenge science to produce something that doesn't.
How many species of fish co-exist in the oceans without ever cross-breeding? Or land animals who herd together.....they choose only their own "kind" to produce offspring, without exception. It is programmed into their DNA. You think these 'programs' wrote themselves?

Horses and donkeys can reproduce when artificially mated to produce a mule. The offspring are invariably sterile. They are of the same "kind" but would not mate naturally in the wild, just the same as lions and tigers can mate when artificially induced to do so. Their offspring are sterile too. This indicates a genetic barrier, does it not?

I have addressed all these questions before but perhaps you have selective memory issues?

 

[Deeje]

Yes, I agree functionality is the product of design, because by definition function implies purpose. The statement has nothing to do with our discussion.

When you see functionality in design then there is purpose to it apart from it being aesthetically pleasing. The functionality is the point of the discussion...you are concentrating on the "prettiness", which in the case of fractals is beauty that serves no purpose apart from being pretty.

But you have agreed that fractals, which are pretty, have no function.

I also have to say...so what? If we did not have the capacity to appreciate beauty, it would all be wasted anyway. So the fact that beautiful things exist cannot be the issue. Those beautiful things are all around us....some to facilitate vital functions, others to simply delight the senses. It tells me that the Creator wanted us to live and enjoy this life.....not just exist.

Flowers often have a beautiful perfume that humans enjoy for no specific reason than the enjoyment itself. If those flowers are beautiful AND have a pleasant perfume, we would not be able to appreciate them on two levels without two completely separate senses.

Beautiful birds and a sweet song...another two senses needed to appreciate them.

Food looks good and tastes good.....it also smells good. To nourish our bodies, we don't need food to be any of those things. Yet again, separate senses are involved to enhance our enjoyment of life. Three of them.

Are you seeing my point? What need to we have for enjoyment? It isn't a survival advantage.

And you agree that a simple thing can produce a more complex thing without being designed (I think).

If I see design and it serves a purpose (which most do) then I conclude that it is there for a reason....and I usually find one that has nothing to do with evolution.

Would you extend that to physics, that those laws could produce something pretty like a snowflake, without design?

I believe that the one responsible for creation engineered perfection in design into even microscopic things like snowflakes. Natural processes create the designs, but I believe that God created the process. Is there a need for snowflakes to be exquisite? They are.

We have facial recognition "software" implanted in our brains. Science has not long created this technology for use in reconnaissance activity....but who invented it first? If intelligent minds had to recreate it, what kind of intelligence is responsible for its existence in the first place?

Do you ever ask these questions? Have you investigated the science of biomimetics? Its a great way to acquaint yourself with how much man has plagiarised ideas from God.

 

[Olinda]

The way things "appear to be" or "might be" is not an excuse to infer that that is the way it" had" to be. Presupposing that your data is correct without any real substantive proof for your claim, places evolutionary science in the category of a belief system. It is so confident that its beliefs are correct and yet the evidence is all supposition based on its own biased interpretation of the "evidence".

@Deeje, I've noticed for most of this thread you use a lot of qualifiers for "evidence" and "proof", such as real, substantive, solid, etc. These seem to blur the fact that there is evidence for the ToE, lots of it, although proof is never claimed for this theory or any other.
In addition, you have been shown that predictions based on the ToE have been verified, and no prediction based on the ToE has been falsified.
Therefore I'd suggest that a reasonable and loving God could hardly punish people for accepting the theory as valid.

A barrier has to exist because science can only 'suggest' that it doesn't.

Are you saying here that even though you don't know what the barrier would be, it just "has to" exist?

Horses and donkeys can reproduce when artificially mated to produce a mule. The offspring are invariably sterile. They are of the same "kind" but would not mate naturally in the wild, just the same as lions and tigers can mate when artificially induced to do so. Their offspring are sterile too. This indicates a genetic barrier, does it not?

No, it does not. @Profound Realization seems to have fallen into the same error. That different species cannot reproduce with each other in no way prevents a single species splitting into two different species, which is what the ToE postulates. And incidentally, evidence for this has been posted. Several times.
So, over time, what would prevent such species diverging further and further? That is the 'barrier' that you need to demonstrate.

 

[Deeje]

@Deeje, I've noticed for most of this thread you use a lot of qualifiers for "evidence" and "proof", such as real, substantive, solid, etc. These seem to blur the fact that there is evidence for the ToE, lots of it, although proof is never claimed for this theory or any other.
In addition, you have been shown that predictions based on the ToE have been verified, and no prediction based on the ToE has been falsified.

Predictions? Science has a crystal ball now does it?

The "evidence for the ToE" is not convincing to anyone with ability to read what scientists actually write.

I suggest that these "predictions" are in the same ball park as the evidence itself. "I think it might have happened" is not the same as saying "I definitely know that it happened". If the prediction is interpreted in the same way as the evidence, then of course its going to turn out to be exactly as they predicted.

What on earth does that prove? That scientists are going to prop up their own pet theory.

Who is going to be game to falsify evidence in an atmosphere where ridicule and loss of credibility in the scientific community are the logical consequences?

Therefore I'd suggest that a reasonable and loving God could hardly punish people for accepting the theory as valid.

You think? It is hardly reasonable to validate a theory that makes God redundant and expect that he is going to love you for it. We have a mind and an heart to see the truth. Thankfully your truth is not my truth. You have chosen your belief system and I have chosen mine.

Are you saying here that even though you don't know what the barrier would be, it just "has to" exist?

I am saying that a barrier already exists. Sterility results when even closely related species interbreed. Science cannot prove that any creature evolved from something else. Their diagrams are not photographic evidence....in case you haven't noticed.

That different species cannot reproduce with each other in no way prevents a single species splitting into two different species, which is what the ToE postulates. And incidentally, evidence for this has been posted. Several times.

You're not listening are you? If the two different species belong to the same taxonomic family and always will, how can it become something other than what its genes dictate? Adaptation simply creates variety, like Darwin's finches. Give us proof that this "splitting" ever resulted in the formation an entirely new creature. I don't want speculation, I want to see with my own eyes that science is correct......no "might haves" or "could haves"......I would like to see solid, substantiated evidence. You see, I have a belief system and science claims NOT to. The one who is claiming NOT to be a belief system, better be able to back up what it says with proof......or it is just another belief system requiring faith like ours.

Who are going to argue when the scientists are all wanting to hear the same story? There is no evidence that does not depend on their interpretation. I find the so-called evidence to be very superficial.

So, over time, what would prevent such species diverging further and further? That is the 'barrier' that you need to demonstrate.

If there is no "diverging" proven to have taken place in the first instance, how can it go on? Adaptation is all science has ever seen. It does not make one family member morph into a completely different taxonomy, no matter how much time you throw at it. Science has no evidence that it didn't manufacture in their own imagination first.....then the evidence was interpreted to fit the theory.

 

[scott777]

When you see functionality in design then there is purpose to it apart from it being aesthetically pleasing. The functionality is the point of the discussion...you are concentrating on the "prettiness", which in the case of fractals is beauty that serves no purpose apart from being pretty.



I also have to say...so what? If we did not have the capacity to appreciate beauty, it would all be wasted anyway. So the fact that beautiful things exist cannot be the issue. Those beautiful things are all around us....some to facilitate vital functions, others to simply delight the senses. It tells me that the Creator wanted us to live and enjoy this life.....not just exist.

Flowers often have a beautiful perfume that humans enjoy for no specific reason than the enjoyment itself. If those flowers are beautiful AND have a pleasant perfume, we would not be able to appreciate them on two levels without two completely separate senses.

Beautiful birds and a sweet song...another two senses needed to appreciate them.

Food looks good and tastes good.....it also smells good. To nourish our bodies, we don't need food to be any of those things. Yet again, separate senses are involved to enhance our enjoyment of life. Three of them.

Are you seeing my point? What need to we have for enjoyment? It isn't a survival advantage.



If I see design and it serves a purpose (which most do) then I conclude that it is there for a reason....and I usually find one that has nothing to do with evolution.

I believe that the one responsible for creation engineered perfection in design into even microscopic things like snowflakes. Natural processes create the designs, but I believe that God created the process. Is there a need for snowflakes to be exquisite? They are.

We have facial recognition "software" implanted in our brains. Science has not long created this technology for use in reconnaissance activity....but who invented it first? If intelligent minds had to recreate it, what kind of intelligence is responsible for its existence in the first place?

Do you ever ask these questions? Have you investigated the science of biomimetics? Its a great way to acquaint yourself with how much man has plagiarised ideas from God.

Well no, I don’t agree we are discussing functionality. Your belief is that things are functional. Evolutionists do not. Fractals demonstrate that ‘apparently designed’ things can occur without functionality, without purpose, without actual design.

So you agree that natural processes can create the apparent designs. That is exactly what evolution is about. It is not about the origin of life or of physics. It is about how very simple organisms can become complex life. So, can a natural process (such as evolution) create the ‘apparent’ designs of complex life? Can you now see any possibility?

 

[Jose Fly]

@Deeje, I've noticed for most of this thread you use a lot of qualifiers for "evidence" and "proof", such as real, substantive, solid, etc. These seem to blur the fact that there is evidence for the ToE, lots of it, although proof is never claimed for this theory or any other.
In addition, you have been shown that predictions based on the ToE have been verified, and no prediction based on the ToE has been falsified.
Therefore I'd suggest that a reasonable and loving God could hardly punish people for accepting the theory as valid.

I find it hard to believe that so many people spend so much time trying to convince a person of the validity of evolutionary theory, when that person has directly stated that she will never be swayed by any evidence, and she cannot change her mind lest those in her religion ruin her life.

If there's a person on the street corner yelling at fire hydrants, who's crazier, him or a person who tries to debate him?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unfortunately, you do make such claims. It is precisely your argument.

Nope. I gave you my argument and you misrepresented it. I said, "My claim is that there is no known barrier to evolution. Those who say there is need to explain or demonstrate what it is if they wish to be believed." You've somehow converted that to a claim that we know that it can happen, and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to me for making a statement I never made.

If you want to contradict my position, you're going to have to make an affirmative statement that there does exist such a barrier, and if you want to be believed, you'll need to demonstrate that. The burden of proof is all yours. And I see from the remainder of your post, that you accepted this and attempted to demonstrate that a barrier exists in an argument that I didn't find compelling.

All scientific research, in laboratories/breeding, etc. reach barriers.

Irrelevant. What scientists have been able to do in a few decades does not limit what nature might have done over billions of years.

Gene flow is prevented, sterility occurs, inability to produce viable gametes, difference in chromosome structures prevent appropriate pairing and segregation during meiosis, morphological differences, differing times of fertility, mating behaviors, psychological rejection of sperm cells, etc. All in correlation with the large genetic difference amongst species.

Also irrelevant. Populations evolve. It's a fact.

Furthermore, how do these ideas add up to a barrier to evolution? Individuals still experience beneficial mutation in gametes that are passed along to offspring where they manifest phenotypically and are selected for by nature notwithstanding the fact that some individual experiments in nature fail. These changes can then be followed by additional beneficial mutation in future generations for as long as the process is allowed to continue, which appears to be billions of years to date.

If you cannot demonstrate that that is impossible, it cannot be ruled out.

These are well known and observed "barriers."

Nope. They may be barriers to pairs of organisms producing viable offspring, but not to populations evolving.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Even worse, these are humans with "intelligence" that cannot perform such, but "stupid" Nature is alleged to have performed such.

Nature has been experimenting a lot longer, over the entire tree of life, and with virtually every possible mutation to the genetic code. Every individual base has likely been tested with a mutation to each of the other bases. It's not as efficient as intelligently directed manipulations, but it doesn't need to be to have accomplished so much more.

So, it is on you to provide the factual truths of how these observed and demonstrated "barriers" were and can be broken.

Nope. If you claim that they cannot, it's your burden of proof.

I'm not going to be dishonest and ask you for evidence, sinceI know that there is none.

I don't need evidence. You do. If you cannot prove that evolution could not have occurred as the theory claims, then by default, it remains possible. I need bring nothing to the discussion but a willingness to see your argument and evaluate it dispassionately and open-mindedly.

I *will* ask you for evidence even though I know that you have none. What else do you have?

However, if you wish to believe like most others that they "can" or "may" be broken "given enough time," there is nothing wrong with faith/believing such

There is no faith in my position. It is self-evidently true as are all statements that what has not been shown to be impossible might possible.

All that does though is give "natural selection" an all-powerful characteristic that can invent and wish and imagine whatever the human mind wants it to.

You need to show that Darwin's theory is incorrect. If you cannot, then it stands unfalsified.

I've never seen anybody take the position you have that wasn't a creationist trying to find a need for a creator god - something that nature could not have done without the help of intelligence. Is that your purpose?

If not, what are you planning to replace Darwin's theory with? Life is here. If it didn't arise and diversify naturalistically, then it must have been created by an intelligent designer, right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The way things "appear to be" or "might be" is not an excuse to infer that that is the way it" had" to be.

Agree. As I just explained in a post to Profound Realization, it is enough to say that that is how things appear to be or might be.

Presupposing that your data is correct without any real substantive proof for your claim, places evolutionary science in the category of a belief system.

I don't have a problem with beliefs systems in general - just the faith based ones.

You can't prove your belief system any more than I can.

Not necessary. I'm sure that you agree inasmuch as you don't feel the need to prove yours.

How many times have I quoted from the many links posted as "mountains of evidence" and shown how misleading they are? Those "mountains" are nothing but pathetic molehills. Its a con of massive proportions. The Emperor has no clothes, but he is parading around like he's regaled in splender. People are laughing at the incredible ego he displays whilst exposing his complete nakedness.

That's fine, but you still didn't address the question asked, so let's ask it again with your modification: Why would we throw away a scientific theory that unifies and accounts for the available evidence, included a mechanism, is falsifiable by virtue of predicting what kinds of things can and cannot be found in nature but has never been falsified, and has led to technological advances that have improved the human condition for an idea that can do none of that?

A "kind" is apparently a taxonomic family as far as I can tell.

OK. Like the family of finches, family Fringillidae

A family is a group of genera, and a genus is a group of species. One subfamily of Fringillidae is Carduelinae, a subfamily of finches containing 183 species divided into 49 genera. Is that consistent with your definition of "kind"? Finches are a "kind"?

When the Bible says that all living things reproduce "according to their kind" then I challenge science to produce something that doesn't.

Science doesn't need to. Science also says that every fertile offspring is of the same species as its parents, which is roughly the same thing, correct?

Yet if you go back enough generations, you'll find ancestors that are of a different species. If the theory of evolution is correct, we all have reptilian ancestors, amphibian ancestors, fish ancestors, and even single celled ancestors. If evolution is correct, it would not be possible to identify a first human. There was no human born to a nonhuman parent.

Have you heard of the sorites paradox? It parallels this discussion.

Incidentally, man is in the same taxonomical family with the chimps, gorillas and orangutans - family Hominidae, the great apes. So if you allow for evolution withing taxonomical families, or "kinds" as you call them, you're allowing for human from non-human evolution. That's microevolution by your definition - evolution within a "kind."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A barrier has to exist because science can only 'suggest' that it doesn't.

Non sequitur. Your conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it. Suggesting that no barrier exists does not lead to the conclusion that one must exist.

Not one shred of solid evidence exists to demonstrate that any species has ever mutated or 'evolved' outside of its taxonomic family and you know it.

The theory doesn't claim that species mutate outside of their taxonomic families. The statement doesn't make sense, either.

And you still haven't answered what barrier would prevent lesser degrees of evolution that occur over shorter periods of time from accruing over much longer periods of time into much greater changes? Telling me that science can only suggest that it happened and that no species has ever mutated into a new family does not demonstrate a barrier to what you call macroevolution.

Every living this on this material earth in this material universe had to have a beginning.

No argument there.

It also knows that in this realm, all life has to spring from pre-existing life. It knows of no exceptions....from the simplest forms of life to the most complex.

No, that is not known. Like evolution, the abiogenesis hypothesis remains viable until it can be proven to be impossible. It's so viable, in fact, that millions of dollars are being granted to research it by thousands of people devoting their careers to the effort.

And, of course, you still failed to explain why you posit a god to account for a living cell that you find too complex to exist undesigned and uncreated when what you are doing is proposing an entity also undesigned and uncreated that would need to be orders of magnitude more complex than a cell to account for it.

I have addressed all these questions before but perhaps you have selective memory issues?

And you've addressed them again, but only answered one of the four questions: define a kind. And I'll bet that you change that once you realize that if you allow for evolution within "kinds" and call that microevolution, and define a kind as a taxonomical family, that you allowed for human from non-human evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is no proof that any creature is a common ancestor of any living thing....that is an assumption. Finding a fossil that existed thousands or even millions of years ago and seeing similarities to later species is not proof that they are related except perhaps by taxonomy. If earlier species of that family died out or were eliminated from existence for some reason, science can use guesswork all it wants....but it cannot prove any of its assumptions are true...not by any means.

Comparative genomics is one line of EVIDENCE that demonstrates common ancestry. So again, it’s NOT an assumption. There is also evidence to be found in the fossil record. So right there we have two lines of evidence from different fields of science, both pointing to the same conclusions. Which is what I told you we would find, and what you continue to ignore and try to deflect away from, as you’ve done here, again.

If you don’t think comparative genomics (“a field of biological research in which the genomic features of different organisms are compared. The genomic features may include the DNA sequence, genes, gene order, regulatory sequences, and other genomic structural landmarks”) presents compelling evidence for common ancestry, does that also mean you believe that you could not trace your own ancestry back through time?

If however, all living things share a common Creator, using the same genetic material to fashion all of his creatures, would we not also expect to find DNA in common? If a basic physical framework worked well, what was to stop him from using it in different creatures as it suited his plan?

Well this Creator has apparently decided to create each individual organism in such a way that it appears that they are all related to varying degrees, depending on what time they came into existence on our planet. In other words, your Creator designed life with the appearance of evolution built into it. Is that Creator trying to deceive us or something? I don’t get it.

The only corroborating evidence is similarities (sometimes only in an earbone) and some shared DNA....that proves what exactly? Not much from my perspective.

Shared DNA shows relatedness. Like how you share 50% DNA with your parents, 25% with your grandparents, 12.5% with your cousins, and less and as relatives become more distant. How do you square this fact of reality with your views?

Since science claims to be so advanced, it beggars belief that something like cancer, that decimates large chunks of the world's population annually, is still not understood enough genetically to have been conquered by now. Perhaps less concentration on lucrative pharmaceutical drugs and more on the role of the body's immune system and its relationship to diet and chemical pollution might help?

style='font-variant-ligatures: normal;font-variant-caps: normal;orphans: 2; widows: 2;-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;text-decoration-style: initial; text-decoration-color: initial;word-spacing:0px' class="bbCodeImage wysiwygImage" unselectable=on v:shapes="_x0000_i1025">

Could you elaborate on what you think this has to do with comparative genomics and other evidences for evolution?

There are plant based medicines that have shown incredible potential for the curing of many diseases.... but governments arrest people for daring to take them, or even revoke medical licences for doctors who dare to recommend them. Is science implicated in that problem? How can it not be?

Well then, you’d better get to work coming up with some studies where you can demonstrate the wonders of the plant based medicines you speak of. It is unethical and dangerous for doctors to prescribe meds that have not been properly vetted.

Humans are implicated in our problems. Science is a tool.

In the meantime, can we get back to the topic of discussion?

Perhaps it would benefit a lot of people to examine the current orthodox medical system whilst investigating the role of science in a world bent on making us extinct....or at least helping to cull the increasing population. Heaven forbid that science should be made to clean up the mess it has been complicit in creating on this planet. [img width="19" height="19" src="file:///C:\Users\RECEPT~1\AppData\Local\Temp\msohtml1\07\clip_image002.gif"

Um okay.

They are seeing what they want to see. If you want to see a relationship between humans and bananas.....what can I say?

They are seeing what is there. You are denying what is there. It’s evident in the fact that you keep trying to deflect away from the topic at hand and by refusing to draw logical conclusions about obvious relatedness.

So you don’t think say, your DNA would show that you are more closely related to your mother than you are to me?

Sapiens has confirmed that he believes his ancestors were bananas. The mind boggles....

No he doesn’t.

Can you tell me why an all-powerful Creator would use something as hit and miss as evolution to produce anything? I believe that he crafted creation with deliberate precision and that the "kinds" we see in today's world are the kinds he created to be as they are.

Because it’s an amazing process. I guess I think more of the Creator I don’t believe in than you do.

Science cannot disprove that.

Well like I keep saying, go ahead and follow your own advice and prove it. Science hasn’t run into any evidence that backs up your assertions and so it doesn’t accept them as factually accurate information.

I don't have the space to tell you all the details.....suffice it to say, when you read it with the right attitude, it all makes perfect sense. Its a complete story that does not leave questions unanswered for enquiring minds. The what, where, why and how are all answered logically and completely.

So what you are telling me is that if I don’t read it with my head already being full of preconceived notions and a desire to believe, it won’t make sense? Well that’s awfully convenient! And that certainly doesn’t sound very rational to me. Is the Bible really that unconvincing that I have to already believe in it for it to make any sense?

That’s a rhetorical question anyway, because I have read it. And as I told you once before, it’s one of the reasons I am an atheist. Because I don’t find it special or especially convincing or believable or logically consistent.

Here we go again...."mountains of evidence"? There are no "mountains".....there are pathetic molehills with no real supporting evidence whatsoever. You have a belief system, just like we do.

I have beliefs just like anyone else. But evolution is not a belief system. It’s a description of processes found in nature. In this case, it’s about the overwhelming evidence that makes it impossible for me not to accept the fact that evolution occurs. You even acknowledge as much, you just choose to call it adaptation instead.

If you want to base your whole belief system on what science "really" knows as opposed to what it "thinks" it knows...then that is entirely up to you. I know what makes more sense to me.

That’s fine for you. But let’s not pretend you came to that position by following the science.

Science works in many areas, it is true and no one can dispute that. We have scientists in our own ranks.....but as far as predicting how life arose and how things led to all that we see on this planet today......it falls way short. It stumbles around in the dark, throwing guesses at all questions in order to support its precious theory. You can believe it if you wish....I cannot.

Science works in all areas. Got something better? Let's hear it.

I think it’s bizarre that you think evolution is science’s “precious theory.” There are many scientific theories that all have been predicated on the same scientific method and quality of evidence as the theory of evolution. And in the case of evolution, there is overwhelming evidence demonstrating that biological organisms evolve over time. Yet you reject evolution while accepting the others. Again, I don’t see how your position makes any sense unless you’re forced to reject evolution based on preconceived religious beliefs.

In your opinion that might be correct, but evolution is not demonstrable at all with any real evidence. It has nothing but assumption to back up its story. When did guesses get to take the place of facts?

You’ve helped to demonstrate the very real fact that evolution is demonstrable while creationism is not. When you’ve presented evidence for the existence of your god, please be sure to let us know.[/QUOTE]

 

[Jose Fly]

If you don’t think comparative genomics (“a field of biological research in which the genomic features of different organisms are compared. The genomic features may include the DNA sequence, genes, gene order, regulatory sequences, and other genomic structural landmarks”) presents compelling evidence for common ancestry, does that also mean you believe that you could not trace your own ancestry back through time?

The field of comparative genomics is based on evolutionary common ancestry (for example, CLICK HERE). It's what tells geneticists which genomes to compare, what to look for, and how to interpret the results.

The relative evolutionary relationships between taxa is how we figure out the functions of various genetic sequences. I posted the info to @Deeje before and in typical fashion, she blew it off.

 

[Profound Realization]

Nope. I gave you my argument and you misrepresented it. I said, "My claim is that there is no known barrier to evolution. Those who say there is need to explain or demonstrate what it is if they wish to be believed." You've somehow converted that to a claim that we know that it can happen, and then attempt to shift the burden of proof to me for making a statement I never made.

If you want to contradict my position, you're going to have to make an affirmative statement that there does exist such a barrier, and if you want to be believed, you'll need to demonstrate that. The burden of proof is all yours. And I see from the remainder of your post, that you accepted this and attempted to demonstrate that a barrier exists in an argument that I didn't find compelling.



Irrelevant. What scientists have been able to do in a few decades does not limit what nature might have done over billions of years.



Also irrelevant. Populations evolve. It's a fact.

Furthermore, how do these ideas add up to a barrier to evolution? Individuals still experience beneficial mutation in gametes that are passed along to offspring where they manifest phenotypically and are selected for by nature notwithstanding the fact that some individual experiments in nature fail. These changes can then be followed by additional beneficial mutation in future generations for as long as the process is allowed to continue, which appears to be billions of years to date.

If you cannot demonstrate that that is impossible, it cannot be ruled out.



Nope. They may be barriers to pairs of organisms producing viable offspring, but not to populations evolving.

The last thing I'd want to do is misrepresent anyone and what they're saying. What is the line that you're at between "could have" and "did?" You said, "They may be barriers to pairs of organisms producing viable offspring but not to populations evolving." To me, it seems you're cleverly and clearly trying to mix the 2. As I said, there is nothing wrong with the "belief system" that it did.

The scientific method performed by intelligent human beings is based on repeated observations and current truths. The current observations and current truths leave "barriers." As said, there is nothing wrong with the "belief system" that these current observations and truths "COULD" change. Those aren't ideas, they are currently demonstrated in laboratories and breeding. It's already been demonstrated. I have no issues accepting these. I have showed you "current scientific facts" which you state don't exist or are not compelling" and then pursue with "could's." These barriers are known, and that has led to more "hypothesis'" as to how evolution COULD MAYBE continue as "believed" it did.

Because the process of evolving life has allegedly been around for billions of years, does not automatically mean that it all happened the way it's "believed" to have.

We are not much different, I'm with you... I don't rule out that it COULD maybe happen, and I can "believe" it happened but our difference is in refusal to acknowledge the current barrier truths and admit that it would be a "belief" system to think that it did.

 

[Olinda]

Predictions? Science has a crystal ball now does it?

Nice dodge on the point about qualifiers!
As for predictions, yes, science makes them on the basis of a theory and they can be verified. Please look up the finding of Tiktaalik, and refer to @Jose Fly's latest post below.
Also remember that if you are representing any religion that has made predictions about Armageddon, scoffing about crystal balls puts you in a vulnerable position!

The "evidence for the ToE" is not convincing to anyone with ability to read what scientists actually write.

And what endows you with this ability, which is apparently denied to so many?

I suggest that these "predictions" are in the same ball park as the evidence itself. "I think it might have happened" is not the same as saying "I definitely know that it happened"

It seems you are talking about past events, not predictions. How does this apply to the examples I gave?

Who is going to be game to falsify evidence in an atmosphere where ridicule and loss of credibility in the scientific community are the logical consequences?

There have been many challenges to accepted scientific theories, and some have been quoted to you. It's all part of the scientific process.

You think? It is hardly reasonable to validate a theory that makes God redundant and expect that he is going to love you for it. We have a mind and an heart to see the truth. Thankfully your truth is not my truth. You have chosen your belief system and I have chosen mine.

Yet another thing you have not demonstrated is that the ToE "makes God redundant". What's the problem with believing in God without instructing him on how he created living things?

I am saying that a barrier already exists. Sterility results when even closely related species interbreed. Science cannot prove that any creature evolved from something else. Their diagrams are not photographic evidence....in case you haven't noticed.

You are saying so without evidence, and, yet again, science does not "prove" anything.

You're not listening are you? If the two different species belong to the same taxonomic family and always will, how can it become something other than what its genes dictate?

You're hardly a teacher though, are you?
Firstly, you have been shown that genes mutate. Secondly "taxonomic family" is a man-made definition, and therefore not exactly cast in stone.

Give us proof that this "splitting" ever resulted in the formation an entirely new creature. I don't want speculation, I want to see with my own eyes that science is correct......no "might haves" or "could haves"......I would like to see solid, substantiated evidence.

As usual, you are demanding proof, then evidence with qualifiers. Finally you need to see it with "your own eyes". Yet in other fields of information science you readily accept information you cannot see.

You see, I have a belief system and science claims NOT to. The one who is claiming NOT to be a belief system, better be able to back up what it says with proof......or it is just another belief system requiring faith like ours.

Sigh! Proof yet again. No, I think it's fine and reasonable to accept substantial evidence while keeping an open mind.
Once my eldest child informed me that elephants were imaginary creatures like dragons. Unlike the God of your belief I didn't assign blame for a mistake, but arranged a visit to the zoo.

 

[Profound Realization]

Nature has been experimenting a lot longer, over the entire tree of life, and with virtually every possible mutation to the genetic code. Every individual base has likely been tested with a mutation to each of the other bases. It's not as efficient as intelligently directed manipulations, but it doesn't need to be to have accomplished so much more.



Nope. If you claim that they cannot, it's your burden of proof.



I don't need evidence. You do. If you cannot prove that evolution could not have occurred as the theory claims, then by default, it remains possible. I need bring nothing to the discussion but a willingness to see your argument and evaluate it dispassionately and open-mindedly.

I *will* ask you for evidence even though I know that you have none. What else do you have?



There is no faith in my position. It is self-evidently true as are all statements that what has not been shown to be impossible might possible.



You need to show that Darwin's theory is incorrect. If you cannot, then it stands unfalsified.

I've never seen anybody take the position you have that wasn't a creationist trying to find a need for a creator god - something that nature could not have done without the help of intelligence. Is that your purpose?

If not, what are you planning to replace Darwin's theory with? Life is here. If it didn't arise and diversify naturalistically, then it must have been created by an intelligent designer, right?

There is faith and belief in your position, it's okay that you're not aware of it. Faith and belief are emotionally offensive word to some.

I suppose it's true as you even just admitted that with faith all things are possible because they aren't shown to be impossible.

If I believed that it happened as suggested, I do not know that it happened, I believe that it happened. I'm not afraid to admit such. I don't mix my beliefs with facts and then act as a hypocrite pointing out others who believe differently than myself.

My position is neutral, self-awareness. I won't condescend or pick on anyone for expressing their faith and beliefs in evolution theory or forms of intelligent design and/or both together while simultaneously expressing my own faith and beliefs. It is pure hypocrisy and dishonesty. I enjoy attempting to point that out in others, because I once did the same thing.

 

[Deeje]

I find it hard to believe that so many people spend so much time trying to convince a person of the validity of evolutionary theory, when that person has directly stated that she will never be swayed by any evidence, and she cannot change her mind lest those in her religion ruin her life.

This is all you have Jose Fly ......no sound argument to support your theory...just ridicule....what a pathetic excuse for a defense. You know that you are on shaky ground when this is all you have....

I have already been swayed by the "evidence"....I was just not swayed by anything science presented in this argument. I took your articles and dismantled them, showing that these are not articles about 'proof' for macro-evolution, (they don't exist) but articles written in such a way as to cover over the fact that science has no facts. It's all smoke and mirrors.

If there's a person on the street corner yelling at fire hydrants, who's crazier, him or a person who tries to debate him?

The people yelling at the fire hydrants are the evolutionists. The people debating them are trying to make them see that their intellect could be put to better use.

 

[savagewind]

......no sound argument to support your theory...just ridicule....what a pathetic excuse for a defense.

No sa! I used to think such thinking was not possible.