Proof of evolution -at last-

[YoursTrue]

Such an appeal to magic would upend the whole of science.
There is no reason to propose any magical alternative. Natural processes seem quite sufficient.
Magic neither clarifies nor explains anything.

To be honest, evolution seems very much like magic.

 

[YoursTrue]

What you have done is highlight more gaps in our knowledge. What are you claiming is the default for these gaps this time?

These are not examples of a barrier that I asked you about. What are they besides examples from the fossil record with gaps in their known ancestry.

It just looks like you are diverting the argument and the goal posts to another field. I am staying put and asking for your answer to my questions. Not a discussion of the irrelevant.

I find it incredible to believe that there is an unknown common denominator between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I find it incredible to believe that there is an unknown common denominator between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.

Some people do. The funny thing is that finding something incredible is not evidence that it isn't correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people do. The funny thing is that finding something incredible is not evidence that it isn't correct.

I realize that. Still as you know, deciding one makes more sense than the other can be judiciously done. This is not to say that what someone believes must be accepted by another.

 

[YoursTrue]

Some people do. The funny thing is that finding something incredible is not evidence that it isn't correct.

Yes, but...with all the fossil finds etc., Still no viable evidence of the"common ancestor."

 

[F1fan]

To be honest, evolution seems very much like magic.

That is an absurd comment. Evolution simply follows facts and data. It is quite mundane and clear.

I accuse you of hysterics and theater in your amazement that evolution is magic. I think you know very well it is a well supported theory in science and you prefer to reject it for bad faith religion. Creationism is fraud, and that is what you have accepted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, but...with all the fossil finds etc., Still no viable evidence of the"common ancestor."

Probably not, but we don't know. Still, that does not mean it did not exist. I have no evidence of my 10X great grandfathers. While I cannot prove they existed, I feel pretty confident that they did.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I realize that. Still as you know, deciding one makes more sense than the other can be judiciously done. This is not to say that what someone believes must be accepted by another.

There is evidence that can be reviewed and reasoning that can be followed in the argument for common ancestry. It is not a faith-based position that does not have evidence that can be shown to others. None of that reasoning and evidence states or even suggests that God does not exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

Probably not, but we don't know. Still, that does not mean it did not exist. I have no evidence of my 10X great grandfathers. While I cannot prove they existed, I feel pretty confident that they did.

To be honest with you, I can't figure why it can't be found. There must have been plenty of them, whoever or whatever they were. And then to say that this thing (the purportedly common ancestor) branched off somehow to these distinct forms (chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans) is simply too incredible for me to believe anymore. So what do I think happened? Just as the Bible says. It doesn't give DNA detail but it makes sense moreso, frankly, than the theory (and I say theory purposely) of evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence that can be reviewed and reasoning that can be followed in the argument for common ancestry. It is not a faith-based position that does not have evidence that can be shown to others. None of that reasoning and evidence states or even suggests that God does not exist.

I realize that can be asserted. But really the theory of evolution invokes the theory without saying so outright, that God has little to do with life coming about in the format we see.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence that can be reviewed and reasoning that can be followed in the argument for common ancestry. It is not a faith-based position that does not have evidence that can be shown to others. None of that reasoning and evidence states or even suggests that God does not exist.

I'm guaranteeing you that if we ever have the means to find out, you will not find that a monkey or some in-between is in your line of ancestry. If I'm wrong, ok, I'll retract the guarantee and perhaps apologize.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

To be honest with you, I can't figure why it can't be found. There must have been plenty of them, whoever or whatever they were. And then to say that this thing (the purportedly common ancestor) branched off somehow to these distinct forms (chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans) is simply too incredible for me to believe anymore. So what do I think happened? Just as the Bible says. It doesn't give DNA detail but it makes sense moreso, frankly, than the theory (and I say theory purposely) of evolution.

Populations and the species they represent are governed by the laws of exponential growth and decay. See: "Mandelbrot Set"

A theory is the defining of an observation of the natural world that is supported by facts and its predictive capabilities. 'Theory' means the observation has been well-tested, is widely recognized, and accepted as sufficiently peer reviewed. This is not to say it is infallible it wouldn't be science if it were unfalsifiable... after all, "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

To be honest, evolution seems very much like magic.

But that's not a deal killer for you. The account you accept reads like magic: "And God said, Let there be light: and there was light."

So what do I think happened? Just as the Bible says. It doesn't give DNA detail but it makes sense moreso, frankly, than the theory (and I say theory purposely) of evolution.

DNA detail? The biblical account gives no detail at all but the order of events of creation and a timeline, which it does twice in conflicting accounts. Unlike the theory of evolution, creationism offers no mechanism, makes no testable predictions, and has no application in daily life. Most Christians have accepted that these creation stories are not correct historically or scientifically, and call them allegory (rather than calling them wrong guesses).

I find it incredible to believe that there is an unknown common denominator between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.

I find it not just believable, but an inescapable fact. I've looked at the evidence. There really is virtually no possibility that the theory is wrong given the mountain of evidence in its support.

What would be the implication if the theory were falsified? The default position wouldn't be the Christian deity and the Christian creation story. The existing evidence rules that out. It shouldn't exist if evolution didn't occur as the theory states.

If the theory were overturned, a deceptive intelligent designer would be the only explanation left for why all of these layers of fossils evolving from older, deeper, less familiar forms to more recent, more superficial, more familiar forms in the layers above them, not to mention all of the nested hierarchies in biology. They all point to a gradual process occurring over geological time. If that didn't happen, then whatever else did is nothing like any creation myth on earth describes.

I don't believe the theory anymore.

But that is not because you have found a flaw in the science. It is because you have chosen to believe a competing account by faith. Identifying things that haven't been found yet such as specific ancestors is not an argument against the theory. Nor is saying that you find it incredible.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I realize that can be asserted. But really the theory of evolution invokes the theory without saying so outright, that God has little to do with life coming about in the format we see.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm guaranteeing you that if we ever have the means to find out, you will not find that a monkey or some in-between is in your line of ancestry. If I'm wrong, ok, I'll retract the guarantee and perhaps apologize.

The evidence using the means we have indicates that we share common ancestry with other ape species. No guarantees. No one really can do that with any assurance that a guarantee means anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

To be honest, evolution seems very much like magic.

Your not being honest. You are rejecting the 'honest objective based science for an ancient religious agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but...with all the fossil finds etc., Still no viable evidence of the"common ancestor."

Fossil evidence stratigraphy, and genomics provides a clear objective basis that demonstrates that the 'science of evolution,' not truly only one theory in the modern concept, is the only viable explanation.

Science makes no assumption nor conclusion concerning the existence of Gods nor other supernatural beings and things in ancient nor contemporary texts and beliefs. There are absolutely no defacto assumptions in science beyond the objective falsifiable theories and hypothesis concerning the nature of our physical existence.

 

[shunyadragon]

To be honest with you, I can't figure why it can't be found. There must have been plenty of them, whoever or whatever they were. And then to say that this thing (the purportedly common ancestor) branched off somehow to these distinct forms (chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans) is simply too incredible for me to believe anymore. So what do I think happened? Just as the Bible says. It doesn't give DNA detail but it makes sense moreso, frankly, than the theory (and I say theory purposely) of evolution.

Your religious agenda based on ancient texts, and your intentional ignorance of science precludes any pretext of honesty on your part.

IT was originally proposed as a theory by Charles Darwin, but in reality it is not one theory, but the 'science of evolution' today supported by an overwhelming amount of research and discoveries over the past 150+ years in the work of 19s of thousands of scientists worldwide. 95%+ of all scientists worldwide unconditionally accept the sciene of evolution with education you intentionally refuse to get.

The bottomline is you are not 'honest' nor 'sincere' about science,

 

[cladking]

95%+ of all scientists worldwide unconditionally accept the sciene of evolution with education you intentionally refuse to get.

For all real scientists the acceptance of theory is tentative and dependent on experiment.

 

[YoursTrue]

Your not being honest. You are rejecting the 'honest objective based science for an ancient religious agenda.

What you say is not true. Anyway have a nice day. Be well and kindly enjoy your future maybe.