The ToE and common ancestry of all life forms did not come from looking at the evidence

[Man of Faith]

Are you avoiding post 628? Please, it's my magnum opus for the day. I (being of scientific mind) would love to see it defeated.

Defeated for you.

 

[MSizer]

Defeated for you.

By whom? Which post? Please inform me.

 

[Autodidact]

Darwin didn't have DNA when he came up with the ToE. DNA can say anything you want it to at this point, it depends on what you want to to say.

I see there is yet another subject you feel free to opine about, despite knowing absolutely nothing about it. No, DNA cannot say anything, it says exactly what it says, and nothing else. You can stick your fingers in your ears and ignore what it says, but you can't make it "say anything you want to."

That's right. Darwin didn't even know about DNA, and when it was discovered, exactly as he predicted, it confirmed his theory. That's what we call evidence. (but more on that later, when we get to that.)

 

[Autodidact]

The process that lizards produce lizards as you described it does not stop, I never said it does.

O.K. great. You agree with everything I've said so far. What I've said so far is the actual Theory of Evolution (ToE). You agree with 100% of ToE. My work is done. (And we didn't even get to the evidence. Still want to do the evidence? It will likely take another 100 pages or so, because there is a LOT of it.)

 

[Tristesse]

DNA is used in courts to prove which human commited a crime, they compare human DNA to human DNA, not human DNA to other animals. Matter of fact they can look at DNA and see if it is from a human or not. This has nothing to do with evolution.

Says the man of faith, who isn't a scientist. Explain why you don't think dna should have anything to do with evolution. This should be great.

 

[Alceste]

I already answered that question, that says nothing about evolution unless you want it to. Nobody knows why that happens. You want to call it evidence of evolution, you are free to do that.

Actually, everyone knows why that happens - common descent. The fact you don't like the truth doesn't make it any less obvious to the rest of us.

 

[Tristesse]

Basically you are saying fossils don't matter, I disagree. You yourself used the lack off fossil evidence against creationism in your last paragraph. The lack of fossil evidence disturbed Darwin enough to mention it in the Origin of the Species.

Even if we didn't have one single fossil, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming. So, we don't need the fossils but they are pretty cool to have. And of course darwin would mention that in the origin of species, it's called intellectual honesty, something creationists would know very little about.

 

[ragordon168]

Basically you are saying fossils don't matter, I disagree. You yourself used the lack off fossil evidence against creationism in your last paragraph. The lack of fossil evidence disturbed Darwin enough to mention it in the Origin of the Species.

fossils get damaged over the millenia, destroyed by natural disasters, destroyed by human activity in the area or dug up and turned into magical potions of dragon bone.

Msizer said that as more and more transition fossils are found we find out that there are even more steps on the evolutionary road. as we find more we get closer and closer to the full truth not further away.

yes darwin had a lack of fossil evidence back then but now we have whole museums full of bones,imprints and other fossil evidence to back up the ToE

 

[Autodidact]

Again, you want it to show evidence of relatedness because that is what you believe. I prefer to say it shows evidence of a common design.

Well here's the problem with that. Your "hypothesis" is that God magically poofed two of each "kind" (although you don't know what a "kind" is) into existence 4000 years ago. What sort of evidence could we look for that would confirm that?

Do you know what we mean when we say a hypothesis is "falsifiable?" (Or should I explain it.)

Let's say that every organism on earth uses the same reproductive mechanism: DNA. According to you that confirms your hypothesis. Now let's say that every organism on earth uses a different reproductive mechanism. According to you, that would also confirm your hypothesis, right? Or if they used 17 different mechanisms, or 128, or each "kind" used a different one. No matter what we see, or don't see, or might see, any possible scenario would confirm your hypothesis. There is no theoretical way to confirm or deny it. It's not falsifiable. Therefore it's not science. We can't study it. Any "scientist" who claims to be studying it (so called "creation scientists") are not doing science at all. Anything they discover they can claim supports their thesis, because there is no theoretically conceivable scenario that could falsify it. In other words, it's cheating.

 

[Autodidact]

btw, since you have no proposed definition for a "kind," your hypothesis is: God created two of each I-don't-know-what 4000 years ago. Not much of a hypothesis, is it? No wonder we can't confirm or deny it. You don't even have a hypothesis.

 

[MSizer]

How would you feel MoF if your masterpiece post were ignored by me? I've never worked on a post so deserving of being proven wrong. It will be the post everyone remembers me by when I become a fossil.

 

[ragordon168]

Well here's the problem with that. Your "hypothesis" is that God magically poofed two of each "kind" (although you don't know what a "kind" is) into existence 4000 years ago. What sort of evidence could we look for that would confirm that?

Do you know what we mean when we say a hypothesis is "falsifiable?" (Or should I explain it.)

Let's say that every organism on earth uses the same reproductive mechanism: DNA. According to you that confirms your hypothesis. Now let's say that every organism on earth uses a different reproductive mechanism. According to you, that would also confirm your hypothesis, right? Or if they used 17 different mechanisms, or 128, or each "kind" used a different one. No matter what we see, or don't see, or might see, any possible scenario would confirm your hypothesis. There is no theoretical way to confirm or deny it. It's not falsifiable. Therefore it's not science. We can't study it. Any "scientist" who claims to be studying it (so called "creation scientists") are not doing science at all. Anything they discover they can claim supports their thesis, because there is no theoretically conceivable scenario that could falsify it. In other words, it's cheating.

:clap2: one word - Exellent

 

[Man of Faith]

How would you feel MoF if your masterpiece post were ignored by me? I've never worked on a post so deserving of being proven wrong. It will be the post everyone remembers me by when I become a fossil.

I'm sorry but it wasn't that impressive to me. You should start a post on it if you want congradulatory acculades.

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry but it wasn't that impressive to me. You should start a post on it if you want congradulatory acculades.

That's it? No refutation? So you completely agree with MSizer then?

 

[MSizer]

I'm sorry but it wasn't that impressive to me. You should start a post on it if you want congradulatory acculades.

I don't care whether you're impressed, I want to know that I'm correct, so I'd like you to point out the fallacious nature of my wonderful post, #628. That's what scientists (and wannabe scientists like me) do, we seek the truth, and rejoice when proven wrong, on the grounds that we get closer to the truth that way. So, please help me. Point out my mistakes.

Although I admit, I'm starting to verge on the practice of trolling, so I won't continue, but I'll assume you have no good way to prove me wrong if you don't point it out.

 

[Man of Faith]

OK, let's walk through the problem with your argument by an analogy. Imagine that there was a murder, and the police had found footprints, fingerprints and DNA all showing that the butler did it.

Now, just as the jury is ready to convict based on the evidence, someone notices that there was a hidden camera in the butler's room. So, they run the tape, and find that just a few minutes before the murder, the butler went into his room, got a gun out of his drawer, loaded it, and left the room. Is that not even more evidence than they had before? Yes, it is.

But, the clever defense lawyer jumps up and says "the tape doesn't actually show my client murdering the victim, it only shows that he had a gun a few minutes before the murder, and we can't see on the tape where he went or what he did with the gun, therefore, there is reasonable doubt against my client's alleged guilt."

Would you consider that damning to the prosecuter's case? Of course not. The tape actually supports the prosecuter.

That's what the fossil record is. It's an extra piece of incomplete evidence that only supports what is already evident.

Furthermore, there should NOT be more fossils than there are. Given that mineral based biomass such as bones and carapaces are somewhat recent, we wouldn't expect to find fossils for every speicies that ever existed.

Furthermore, for every transitional fossil found (which is every fossil that exists) a new "gap" is created because now creationists say "ok, fine, so we had fossile a, e, and f, which left us with one gap between a -e. Now we have fossil c, which means we now have TWO gaps, one between a-b and one between c-f. That's foolish. The reality is the gap is filling in, not increasing.

If you want to use fossils to blow evolution out of the water, go find a rabbit or a human in the pre-cambrian layer. Then I will personally tell you that you were right all along.

What you did was prove evolution not to be true. With a murder, we know that a human came from another human, that is why we prosecute, if someone kills an ape we don't prosecute that much, we don't give the death penalty or life in pison. That proves that animals are not like us, we are different.

 

[Amill]

What you did was prove evolution not to be true. With a murder, we know that a human came from another human, that is why we prosecute, if someone kills an ape we don't prosecute that much, we don't give the death penalty or life in pison. That proves that animals are not like us, we are different.

What makes you think that Evolution proposes that something other than human can come from a human?

 

[Tristesse]

What you did was prove evolution not to be true. With a murder, we know that a human came from another human, that is why we prosecute, if someone kills an ape we don't prosecute that much, we don't give the death penalty or life in pison. That proves that animals are not like us, we are different.

Omg! you really can't be that dimwitted. That wasn't the point of his analogy. The point was about being able to gather evidence without having ever witnessed what took place.

 

[Autodidact]

What you did was prove evolution not to be true. With a murder, we know that a human came from another human, that is why we prosecute, if someone kills an ape we don't prosecute that much, we don't give the death penalty or life in pison. That proves that animals are not like us, we are different.

What I want to know is, are you deliberately working on not understanding him, or are you really, really stupid? Which? Because you did not respond to what he said at all. Maybe you're just not really paying attention.

 

[MSizer]

What you did was prove evolution not to be true. With a murder, we know that a human came from another human, that is why we prosecute, if someone kills an ape we don't prosecute that much, we don't give the death penalty or life in pison. That proves that animals are not like us, we are different.

Thanks MoF. I'm afraid I don't have the satisfaction of being proven wrong, but thanks for the effort.

M.