Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[YoursTrue]

I've seen several people offer their explanations including myself, you just don't like the answers. And stop with the poor me I'm a martyr act, you are as bad as the rest of us.

Lol I like your expression as bad as the rest of us. There are explanations of sorts on the internet from Catholics and others about the inconsistency of the theory blended with the Bible. We each have our own journey to take.And again...yes again, the more I read about it even in detail, the less realistic it becomes about the actuality of the theory, meaning the proof. I go no further now but yes, my reading has been informative.

 

[YoursTrue]

I gave you a horse-rhinoceros example, that molecular genetic test (DNA comparisons) put closeness between horse and rhinoceros, than horse family to any bovine family (eg cattle, bisons, etc, which are even-toed ungulates), and Equus DNA & Rhinoceros DNA have also justified putting them into taxon group of the order Perrisodactyla based on their physical trait of having odd-toed hooves.

Another genus, the Tapirus, with 4 living species, also belong into the Perrisodactyl (odd-toed ungulate). The tapirs have 3-toed hooves in their hind legs, but their front legs have 4 toes. The tapir’s overall physical appearance looked nothing like the equine species or the rhinoceros species, and yet more than their odd-numbered of toes, like their respective DNAs have verified grouping them into single order.

since they look nothing alike, their DNA, showed that at some points, there were divergences between these 3 families/genera at some points in time, with common ancestors of some extinct species of the Perrisodactyl.

if you want that “macro” evolution for the speciation of Perrisodactyl, then by all means, call it that, but biologists don’t often use macro vs micro. More often en they are used by reporters of some non-peer-reviewed magazines, or used by some unqualified philosophers.

Allow me to say that the divergences of the DNA does not confirm the theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Allow me to say that the divergences of the DNA does not confirm the theory.

It does. But why do you think that it does not? Denial of evidence is not a valid argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

It does. But why do you think that it does not? Denial of evidence is not a valid argument.

You say it does. Can you prove that difference of DNA of chimpanzees and humans is evidence of evolution? Since you can't prove it, how do you know? Polio vaccine was instrumental in confining the spread of polio. That is proof that the science works. A small variance of DNA between chimpanzees and humans do not prove that the theory of evolution is true. What it proves is that there is an essential difference between chimpanzees and humans, making one a chimpanzee and the other a human. Be it ever so slight with DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You say it does. Can you prove that difference of DNA of chimpanzees and humans is evidence of evolution? Since you can't prove it, how do you know? Polio vaccine was instrumental in confining the spread of polio. That is proof that the science works. A small variance of DNA between chimpanzees and humans do not prove that the theory of evolution is true. What it proves is that there is an essential difference between chimpanzees and humans, making one a chimpanzee and the other a human. Be it ever so slight with DNA.

I can show you the evidence that tells us that we are related. And please, try to use the word "evidence". In fact in the future if you use the word "proof" I will simply correct you and say "you mean evidence".

 

[gnostic]

You say it does. Can you prove that difference of DNA of chimpanzees and humans is evidence of evolution? Since you can't prove it, how do you know? Polio vaccine was instrumental in confining the spread of polio. That is proof that the science works. A small variance of DNA between chimpanzees and humans do not prove that the theory of evolution is true. What it proves is that there is an essential difference between chimpanzees and humans, making one a chimpanzee and the other a human. Be it ever so slight with DNA.

you are still stubbornly using words “prove”, ”proving” and ”proof”.

you are so out of touch with using the correct terminology from science, that it is no longer about your utter ignorance. You have been corrected numerous times, but you’re blindly ignoring that prove and proof are the wrong terms to use, which means you are intellectually and intentionally being dishonest.

Are you so arrogant that you cannot learn from your mistakes?

is science education antithesis for JW people?

for the hundreds of bloody times, proofs are abstract logic, like mathematical equations or constants.

While scientists do use maths, the equations are not evidence, and NO EQUATIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY “TRUE”, NOT UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Do I have to highlight to you that proof do not prove any scientific theory?

Scientific theories and hypotheses must all be tested - the explanations, the premises, the predictions, the equations (proofs), they are all must be tested - BEFORE we can determine if they are scientifically true or false. You don’t use proof, you would use observations of evidence to VERIFY or to REFUTE a hypothesis or theory.

you seemed to be anti-science that you cannot learn that proof isn’t important to science; testable empirical evidence & data are important to science.

 

[John53]

Lol I like your expression as bad as the rest of us. There are explanations of sorts on the internet from Catholics and others about the inconsistency of the theory blended with the Bible. We each have our own journey to take.And again...yes again, the more I read about it even in detail, the less realistic it becomes about the actuality of the theory, meaning the proof. I go no further now but yes, my reading has been informative.

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So far no one really has stepped up to the plate to explain, but -- after all this time I'm getting used to the avoidance as well as the ensuing jokes and insults coming forth. But that's ok, to be expected now and it's been an interesting journey. I appreciate it.

I see that you have not taken my advice to stop offering yourself as a competent judge of what evidence exists and what it means. I thought it was a good idea offered constructively that can make your RF experience more pleasant. You didn't acknowledge seeing it. Every choice you make adds a datapoint. You seem to care enough about how you are perceived to remain polite, but you should know that my estimation of you and your potential has fallen, and I'm about to join the others who see you as somebody who cannot be helped. You go from being a person to exchange ideas with to one to observe. Answers to you go from being meant for you to being meant for others reading along. Do you understand that I no longer expect you to benefit from or make a substantive response to my posting (including this one), and that it is written for a different reason than earlier posts to you? I discussed managing perception when I suggested adopting another approach to sharing your beliefs, but I apparently didn't reach you.

the more I read about it even in detail, the less realistic it becomes about the actuality of the theory, meaning the proof.

Translated to: I read and understand next to nothing about evolution, yet still rely on my own analytic prowess anyway, and cannot learn or refuse to stop using the word proof. That's how that comment was understood.

Allow me to say that the divergences of the DNA does not confirm the theory.

Translated to: I still don't know what evidence reveals to the skilled critical thinker.

Can you prove that difference of DNA of chimpanzees and humans is evidence of evolution? Since you can't prove it, how do you know?

Translated to: I will never stop using the word proof incorrectly, but I will continue to feign interest in reasoning with you by asking for your reasons even though they will not impact my future posting.

Understanding how he knows is not an option for you. You don't bring the proper attitude or skills to the teaching process. What you bring is a confirmation bias that protects you from contradictory evidence and argument and a creationist apologist's toolbox. I see you pulled out macroevolution from the pseudoscience drawer recently.

 

[YoursTrue]

you are still stubbornly using words “prove”, ”proving” and ”proof”.

you are so out of touch with using the correct terminology from science, that it is no longer about your utter ignorance. You have been corrected numerous times, but you’re blindly ignoring that prove and proof are the wrong terms to use, which means you are intellectually and intentionally being dishonest.

Are you so arrogant that you cannot learn from your mistakes?

is science education antithesis for JW people?

for the hundreds of bloody times, proofs are abstract logic, like mathematical equations or constants.

While scientists do use maths, the equations are not evidence, and NO EQUATIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY “TRUE”, NOT UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Do I have to highlight to you that proof do not prove any scientific theory?

Scientific theories and hypotheses must all be tested - the explanations, the premises, the predictions, the equations (proofs), they are all must be tested - BEFORE we can determine if they are scientifically true or false. You don’t use proof, you would use observations of evidence to VERIFY or to REFUTE a hypothesis or theory.

you seemed to be anti-science that you cannot learn that proof isn’t important to science; testable empirical evidence & data are important to science.

My response is that nothing that I have heard about demonstrates how DNA is missing from gorillas to humans. Can it be tested? perhaps you know. That brings up other questions but I'll get back to this perhaps later...

 

[Subduction Zone]

My response is that nothing that I have heard about demonstrates how DNA is missing from gorillas to humans. Can it be tested? perhaps you know. That brings up other questions but I'll get back to this perhaps later...

What? No one is claiming that. What are you trying to say?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me.

I understand where you are coming from.

 

[YoursTrue]

My response is that nothing that I have heard about demonstrates how DNA is missing from gorillas to humans. Can it be tested? perhaps you know. That brings up other questions but I'll get back to this perhaps later...

As I have said, when smallpox vaccines were introduced the number of victims went down drastically. That PROVES that the vaccine works.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate to me.

Hi ya also!

 

[John53]

As I have said, when smallpox vaccines were introduced the number of victims went down drastically. That PROVES that the vaccine works.

What about the people who had the vaccine yet still caught small pox? Does that PROVE it doesn't work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I have said, when smallpox vaccines were introduced the number of victims went down drastically. That PROVES that the vaccine works.

Verry good. So you are saying that the Covid vaccines have been proven to work.

Guess what happened with the smallpox vaccines. Some people were vaccinated and still got smallpox. One of the last known cases was a vaccinated doctor that caught the disease from the smallpox patients that he was treating. He survived.


The smallpox vaccine also highly increased the odds of living through the disease if one caught it anyway. Statistics in the US demonstrated that getting the vaccine greatly reduced the odds of one dying if one got the disease anyway.

It works.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Verry good. So you are saying that the Covid vaccines have been proven to work.

Guess what happened with the smallpox vaccines. Some people were vaccinated and still got smallpox. One of the last known cases was a vaccinated doctor that caught the disease from the smallpox patients that he was treating. He survived.


The smallpox vaccine also highly increased the odds of living through the disease if one caught it anyway. Statistics in the US demonstrated that getting the vaccine greatly reduced the odds of one dying if one got the disease anyway.

It works.

I have an ancestor that got small pox in the times prior to vaccines. She survived. As an early member of generation X, I am old enough to be among the group that was vaccinated. I don't have a scar on my arm. The vaccine was administered to me several times as a child and never took. An anecdotal conclusion one of those doctors of my childhood related to my parents was that it might indicate that I had natural tolerance or some innate immunity to the virus. I have never pursued the question, but I do find the possibility interesting and with the ancestral history, maybe some mutation was evolving under the pressure of the disease. Of course, that isn't proof of anything, but it is evidence, even if anecdotal.

 

[John53]

I have an ancestor that got small pox in the times prior to vaccines. She survived. As an early member of generation X, I am old enough to be among the group that was vaccinated. I don't have a scar on my arm. The vaccine was administered to me several times as a child and never took. An anecdotal conclusion one of those doctors of my childhood related to my parents was that it might indicate that I had natural tolerance or some innate immunity to the virus. I have never pursued the question, but I do find the possibility interesting and with the ancestral history, maybe some mutation was evolving under the pressure of the disease. Of course, that isn't proof of anything, but it is evidence, even if anecdotal.

But have you had a myxomatosis shot?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But have you had a myxomatosis shot?

Absolutely! Along with a couple of shots of tequila.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But have you had a myxomatosis shot?

That story is part of a larger story from my mothers side of the family. The ancestor in question and her later husband were Austrian. He was the son of a duke. Unlanded, with only the title and little money, but he brought scandal into the family for marrying the small pox survivor. For she was only a chamber maid. Apparently, he had a habit of courting scandal.

Bad rabbit.

 

[YoursTrue]

you are still stubbornly using words “prove”, ”proving” and ”proof”.

you are so out of touch with using the correct terminology from science, that it is no longer about your utter ignorance. You have been corrected numerous times, but you’re blindly ignoring that prove and proof are the wrong terms to use, which means you are intellectually and intentionally being dishonest.

Are you so arrogant that you cannot learn from your mistakes?

is science education antithesis for JW people?

for the hundreds of bloody times, proofs are abstract logic, like mathematical equations or constants.

While scientists do use maths, the equations are not evidence, and NO EQUATIONS ARE AUTOMATICALLY “TRUE”, NOT UNTIL THEY HAVE BEEN TESTED WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.

Do I have to highlight to you that proof do not prove any scientific theory?

Scientific theories and hypotheses must all be tested - the explanations, the premises, the predictions, the equations (proofs), they are all must be tested - BEFORE we can determine if they are scientifically true or false. You don’t use proof, you would use observations of evidence to VERIFY or to REFUTE a hypothesis or theory.

you seemed to be anti-science that you cannot learn that proof isn’t important to science; testable empirical evidence & data are important to science.

So let's see. I am speaking of vaccines. I know some people don't take vaccines because I guess they don't think they work or are themselves dangerous. . And I hear some get a disease even if they take a vaccine. What do you do? Would you take a tetanus shot if you were in danger of getting sick from a cut? Just wondering.