Why is evolution even still a debate?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The machinery within cells - especially the nucleus-based eukaryotes - are truly fascinating, with amazing functions!

This is also known as "the argument from awe".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

i noticed your reference is from 1999.
Here’s a much more recent article in the Journal of Virology, “Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections.

The paper also indicates that what are called ERV’s serve another function, in aiding regulatory genes.

Hence, although they may appear to be ancient retroviruses, they are not; but rather integral parts of our DNA.

Way to stick your head in the sand.

The DNA does not merely "appear" to be the result of ancient retroviral insertion. They ARE such result.
And as they became part of the genome through those insertions, there is no reason why they wouldn't take up function within the larger genetic picture of said genome.

Them having function or not today, is irrelevant to what they are: ancient insertions of retro-viral DNA - and how such ERV's originate and spread.

ERV's = as close to genetic proof as it gets.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So, definitely ignorance, god of the gaps, and refusal to learn we are finding are other reasons this debate persists.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Well if you start by calling me a liar, there's nothing to discuss.

Not so much a liar as someone who is deluding themselves into thinking that they somehow understand a scientific theory better than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying it. You claim to have 'studied enough' to determine that the theory is flawed. Yet 99% of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the scientific method disagree with you. That suggests that you clearly have not studied enough to actually grasp what the theory is all about. If you sincerely believe that looking at a few creationist websites has educated you better on the subject than people who have spent decades studying the matter it suggests that you have an enormous ego.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Which spiritual laws? Which god? Which religion? Yours?

The God of the Bible and hear is a law that is broken, why some people cannot see, comprehend or know God, stumble through life unable to discern Him. Read and understand that you cannot stand on the bank of the river and hope to see the water part so you can walk through when God tells you to go into the river first. Science stands on the edge of the river but refuses to get in the water, then says God isn’t real, the water didn’t part.
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible. But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.”
‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭11:1-3, 6

The law of faith and how to please and come to God is written here, if a person continues to try come to God on their own terms that won’t happen, you have to have this faith first, then you will come to God and then you get your proof.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Perhaps water is two parts hydrogen and one part water but we know nothing about any of the parts or what holds them together. Maybe we don't know why they are attracted to the center of the earth and every other molecule or atom in the entire universe. Maybe we know nothing about how these parts came into existence or when and what any individual one has done since. Maybe we don't know how one such molecule differs from another or how even the differences between their electrons. Maybe we don't know what role water plays in any individual's life or consciousness. Maybe we don't know many quadrillions of times more than what we do know.

OK. Let's stipulate to all of that, even though we do know many of those things. Why do you think that what you wrote matters to this discussion? I assume you made the post in response to Harris' comment, but you aren't disagreeing with him. So what is your purpose in posting those words? What conclusion of relevance to this discussion do you think it implies?

Organisms adapt to the environment, that's all we are observing. Cats are still cats, canines are still canines etc.

Same comment. So what? What's your point? Can you write it out longhand, perhaps something like, "evolution must be incorrect because cats are still cats, and this contradicts the theory because ..." Because why? Do you think the theory predicts that we will see more than organisms adapting to their environment or cats giving birth to cats rather than dogs, and because we don't, the theory must be wrong?

It's not a tree of life. That's a crock we've been sold .. it's a wild bush with a lot of branches missing.

Once again, what is your point? That evolution is wrong because all of the pathways between ancestral and modern forms haven't been elucidated yet? If so, why do you think that matters?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Pretty much anything but a fact.

As "genetically factual" as it is to use only dna to determine that your sister is your biological sister and your cousin your biological cousin.

DNA allows us to establish the level of relatedness (which is to say: how recent their shared common ancestors lived) between individuals.

This is how you create phylogenetic trees: by comparing DNA and plotting out matches on a graph.
And when you do so, you get a family tree.

A family tree that includes all species which have their genome sequenced.
And which matches the trees obtained independently from comparative anatomy and all of which are cross referenced with paleontology, geographic distribution, etc.

It's actually quite ridiculous to what level of detail we have knowledge of this stuff.
Which makes it all the more perverse to see people in denial in the face of such overwhelming evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Created from two fully formed adults

Did you expect "half" formed adults? What would that even mean?

... not evolved from nothing with no mechanism.

Since nobody claims things evolve from nothing with no mechanism, I'm not too sure how to respond to this.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Not so much a liar as someone who is deluding themselves into thinking that they somehow understand a scientific theory better than people who have dedicated their entire lives to studying it. You claim to have 'studied enough' to determine that the theory is flawed. Yet 99% of scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying the scientific method disagree with you. That suggests that you clearly have not studied enough to actually grasp what the theory is all about. If you sincerely believe that looking at a few creationist websites has educated you better on the subject than people who have spent decades studying the matter it suggests that you have an enormous ego.

And now I have an enormous ego. You obviously have nothing but insults.

 

[ppp]

Nature does the demonstrating.

I see evidence for God in nature every day.

I see cows producing dung every day.

I can demonstrate that cows exist, and that dung exists, and that cows make dung. And I can provide evidence for what I see every day without ever employing painfully vacuous phrases such as such as 'nature does the demonstrating'.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Same comment. So what? What's your point? Can you write it out longhand, perhaps something like, "evolution must be incorrect because cats are still cats, and this contradicts the theory because ..." Because why? Do you think the theory predicts that we will see more than organisms adapting to their environment or cats giving birth to cats rather than dogs, and because we don't, the theory must be wrong?

Because at some point you had to have an in between. You can't get a canine from a feline and if you reverse it you still have the same issue. I know, let's pretend a creature that looked perhaps somewhat like a Fisher was the ancestor of dogs and cats! Even though we only have a few of it's bones we can get there if we fill in the gaps with guesswork.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I see cows producing dung every day.

I can demonstrate that cows exist, and that dung exists, and that cows make dung. And I can provide evidence for what I see every day without ever employing painfully vacuous phrases such as such as 'nature does the demonstrating'.

The digestive system is a good example, thanks!
Amazing what God has created... you should thank him for his creativity!

 

[ppp]

Which spiritual laws? Which god? Which religion? Yours?

The God of the Bible

So, the god and laws that your religion claims to exist.
How do you intend to make your religion credible to me? It looks like every other religion to me.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Since nobody claims things evolve from nothing with no mechanism, I'm not too sure how to respond to this.

They have no better explanation.

 

[QuestioningMind]

And now I have an enormous ego. You obviously have nothing but insults.

I'm simply going by what you've posted. If you genuinely think you're more educated on the subject than the experts it suggests that you do have an enormous ego. You're more than welcome to explain how you think you know more about the ToE than the experts who have dedicated their life to its study. I'd be delighted to hear how you think the 'study' you've done on the subject is more authoritative than the opinions of people who have actual degrees in the science.

Instead of defending what you wrote all you're doing is telling me how butt-hurt you are that I suggested that your wrong.

 

[ppp]

The digestive system is a good example, thanks!
Amazing what God has created... you should thank him for his creativity!

You need less vacuous phrasing to be credible. You may as well be telling me to thank Freya, or Anansi, or Amaterasu, or Xenu. Your claims currently stand with an equal credibility to their respective adherents.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm simply going by what you've posted. You're more than welcome to explain how you think you know more about the ToE than the experts who have dedicated their life to its study. I'd be delighted to hear how you think the 'study' you've done on the subject is more authoritative than the opinions of people who have actual degrees in the science.

Instead of defending what you wrote all you're doing is telling me how butt-hurt you are that I suggested that your wrong.

I just don't feel the need to converse with someone who immediately lowers himself to insults. I doubt you get more pleasant with time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

First, this:

Sperm and eggs are half cells. Seventh grade science.

This is stated as a fact, because as the poster claims, this is “science”. (No reference provided.)
But then, Polymath debunks this:

No, they are actual cells. They are the haploid sage of our life cycle. They are alive.

Thank you, Polymath, for the correct explanation.

(Many inaccurate statements are touted as science.)

Absolutely these things can be explained

Explained by suppositions, yes. By those who are wedded to naturalistic philosophies. But there is no substantive evidence. Using phrases similar to “in all likelihood”, or “could have been,” is not science. It’s philosophy.

The bacterial flagellum is a modification of a previous secretory protein.

Another assumption that’s stated as a fact.

The T3SS was once believed to be the BF’s precursor, but isn’t anymore due to evidence.

See how *beliefs* enter the picture? But it’s good that the truth was discovered, and beliefs adjusted accordingly!

Unfortunately, I can’t say the same for many religious beliefs.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You need less vacuous phrasing to be credible. You may as well be telling me to thank Freya, or Anansi, or Amaterasu, or Xenu. Your claims currently stand with an equal credibility to their respective adherents.

Why mess with lesser gods when you can go straight to the top?

 

[QuestioningMind]

I just don't feel the need to converse with someone who immediately lowers himself to insults. I doubt you get more pleasant with time.

So sorry that you feel insulted by having someone point out the obvious flaws in your claims. If you have such thin skin then perhaps a forum such as this isn't the best place for you.