Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 256 of 283 (553342)
04-02-2010 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Coyote
04-02-2010 5:11 PM


Re: Assumptions
To a creationist, all assumptions used by science are automatically false if they disagree with revelation, scripture and the like.
So far as I know, there is one and only one assumption of science --- that we can find out about the world by looking at it.
The things that Peg lists as assumptions are certainly not assumptions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Coyote, posted 04-02-2010 5:11 PM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:52 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 257 of 283 (553343)
04-02-2010 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Peg
04-01-2010 8:39 AM


bad start
Hi Peg, several problems here.
from what i've read, macroevolution rests on 3 'main' assumptions
Can you define what "macroevolution" means in biology? I'll give you a hint with these sources:
First from the University of Michigan website on biology & evolution:
quote:
Definitions of Biological Evolution
We begin with two working definitions of biological evolution, which capture these two facets of genetics and differences among life forms. Then we will ask what is a species, and how does a species arise?
  • Definition 1:
    Changes in the genetic composition of a population with the passage of each generation
  • Definition 2:
    The gradual change of living things from one form into another over the course of time, the origin of species and lineages by descent of living forms from ancestral forms, and the generation of diversity
Note that the first definition emphasizes genetic change. It commonly is referred to as microevolution. The second definition emphasizes the appearance of new, physically distinct life forms that can be grouped with similar appearing life forms in a taxonomic hierarchy. It commonly is referred to as macroevolution.
And then from the Berkeley University website on biology & evolution:
quote:
The Definition:
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.
In particular, can you tell me what the difference is between speciation and macroevolution from the viewpoint of evolutionary biology.
Note that I don't care an ant frass in antarctica what creationists think macroevolution is, I am only interested in how the science of biology in general, and the field of evolution in particular, define and use this term.
The first is that mutations are the starting block in the evolution of new species.
The problem with this is that mutations occur all the time, in every individual, in every population, in every generation, yet only rarely do we see speciation, and when we do see speciation it is not because of any single mutation. Whether or not mutations lead to speciation is not a necessary part of the mix. Mutations are a part of evolution, and to get macroevolution you need to have evolution, but evolution doesn't always lead to speciation.
This is like saying that in order to build a sandcastle you need to start with sand. It's mundanely true, but there is a lot of sand in the world that will never participate in the process of building sandcastles.
The 2nd is that natural selection leads to the production of new species.
Again, natural selection leads to populations becoming adapted to their ecological opportunities. Whether or not this adaptation leads to speciation is not a necessary part of the mix.
Natural selection is also a part of evolution, and to get macroevolution you need to have evolution, but evolution doesn't always lead to speciation.
and the 3rd is that the fossil record demonstrates these macroevolutionary changes in plants and animals.
The fossil record is not a part of the theory of evolution, rather it is a set of facts about past life that test the theory. The fossil record shows what it shows, and the question is whether or not it shows the same patterns of evolution that we see in the world today.
Evolution occurs
Speciation occurs
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Peg, posted 04-01-2010 8:39 AM Peg has not replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 258 of 283 (564955)
06-14-2010 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Dr Adequate
04-02-2010 8:07 PM


Re: Assumptions
quote:
So far as I know, there is one and only one assumption of science --- that we can find out about the world by looking at it.
This is actually the same reason that WhatYouOughtToKnow.com authors the Brothers Winn criticize the theory of Evolution (they also criticize Intelligent Design). As quoted from their show on the subject:
quote:
Beyond that, I have one real major issue with intelligent design: it’s not science. At least, no-one to date has been able to show me the theory in a truly scientific light. They say some things are complex, so complex that they must have been created intelligently, rather than accidentally. Okay. But at what point of complexity? I mean, where do you draw the line? It seems arbitrary, and that’s not very scientific. Uh, maybe we shouldn’t teach it as science. Maybe philosophy or something. But there are other philosophies that get taught in science class. You know, like evolution. Woah, buddy — don’t tangle with the Dawkins doctrine.
Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate. And the odds of it happening are really, really, really long. If scientists and educators could own up to that, I’m sure ID never would have even come up. But most people who believe in evolution aren’t willing to admit how unlikely it is, because it dramatically weakens their argument. And if you disagree that it’s unlikely, then you’re in another pickle, because if the odds are good, then you figure we’d have seen evidence of it by now. Like, concrete evidence of it. People like to point out natural selection and the resulting speciation as evidence of evolution, because there’s a mountain of data to support both of those as testable, observable science. But don’t forget: we define what a species is, and no amount of ash on trees has ever changed a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird.
They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing linke, to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. [Whistles]. Wow. And I’m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex — a brand new form of life. A higher form of life. They ought to have their own little civilization, and have bacto-mobiles, and at least be insects by now. I dunno.
Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening, says Dawkins. It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you — the detective — hasn’t actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence. It might as well be spelled out in words of English. But ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh! Dr. Dawkins! Pick me! Pick me! Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretation, and doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It’s like seeing two bones on the ground 40 feet apart and assuming it came from the same animal. Skullcap, thigh bone — Java Man!
The evidence of evolution may indeed spell out a message in plain English. We’ve never seen it happen. We can’t prove it happened, we can’t reproduce it, but it’s the best we’ve got, so we have to believe it. Which is a pretty poor qualifier for teaching it as an undeniable fact to impressionable young minds. Why don’t we just teach the truth? We don’t know how life came about. Why is that so threatening? You can’t prove that evolution happened, or that it didn’t. It’s beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion with any degree of certainty. And if we were to subject evolutionary theory to the same rigors that scientists want to impose on ID, it probably wouldn’t pass the test to be classified as science, either.
That last statement is especially good - while I.D. may not fit the test to be classified as science, evolutionary theory if subjected to the same rigors would likely not pass either.
We've never seen evolution happen. It's beyond the current capacity of science to draw a conclusion either way with any degree of certainty.
We can prove natural selection and adaptation. However, neither proves that all species had a common ancestor, which is a pet philosophy of Darwin's. He at least admitted to it though in 'On the Origin of Species' and examined alternative possibilities, such as the alternative of parent species (which would allow for the Genesis accounts to be accurate, and animals evolving within their own species rather than from one single original life).
But hear Darwin's own words for yourself:
quote:
In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species."
...
When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural speciesfor instance, of the many foxesinhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view.
...
Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?... But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.
"On the Origin of Species", Charles Darwin. pp. 3, 17, 171, 280.

Darwin, for all that I disagree with him, was not shy about expressing the potential flaws in his theory, and honest enough to admit there were noticeable problems to be addressed. He admitted that parent species were an alternative to his belief that all species had a common ancestor, and that the lack of transitional forms was the 'gravest' objection to his theory, though he asserted confidence that it was merely an incomplete fossil record responsible. Darwin also spent an entire chapter puzzling over why sterility would prevent crossing between species if all did indeed have a common ancestor and were immutable. I found it ironic though that he accepted as proof that all species were immutable that merely crossing between different kinds of geese, or varying types of canaries, proved all were immutable. After all, it's hardly the same as crossing between a frog and a cat, or some such thing. I was disappointed in what struck me as hasty and poorly reasoned conclusions on the subject. If there were indeed parent species, canaries, regardless of their technical classification, would be expected after all to fit into the same parent species.
Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-02-2010 8:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 3:10 AM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 06-14-2010 9:42 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 259 of 283 (564956)
06-14-2010 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 2:52 AM


Re: Assumptions
That last statement is especially good - while I.D. may not fit the test to be classified as science, evolutionary theory if subjected to the same rigors would likely not pass either.
Scientists think you're wrong.
This is because they know about science, and (as the immense ignorance displayed throughout your post reveals) you don't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:52 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 3:16 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 260 of 283 (564957)
06-14-2010 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2010 3:10 AM


Re: Assumptions
If at some point you see fit to address my points rather than trying to attack me with ad hominem tactics, let me know. Until then, you've left me nothing to respond to that wouldn't dissolve this topic into a petty name-calling match.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 3:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 3:44 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 261 of 283 (564960)
06-14-2010 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 3:16 AM


Re: Assumptions
If at some point you see fit to address my points rather than trying to attack me with ad hominem tactics, let me know. Until then, you've left me nothing to respond to that wouldn't dissolve this topic into a petty name-calling match.
If you would care to argue for your absurd fantasy, then I shall point out the flaws in your argument. If, on the other hand, you just want us to take your word for it, then there is nothing to be said except that on the subject of biology it would obviously be idiotic to take your word for anything.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 3:16 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 262 of 283 (564966)
06-14-2010 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2010 3:44 AM


Re: Assumptions
If you'd actually tried pointing out flaws in the argument I would've responded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 3:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 4:53 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 263 of 283 (564971)
06-14-2010 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 4:26 AM


Re: Assumptions
If you'd actually tried pointing out flaws in the argument I would've responded.
The flaw is that it's not an argument. It's an assertion --- and an assertion made by someone who is clearly singularly unqualified to make assertions about science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 4:26 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:10 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 264 of 283 (564973)
06-14-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Dr Adequate
06-14-2010 4:53 AM


Re: Assumptions
If you really want to get into this, aren't YOU 'singularly unqualified' to make these objections according to forum rules?
quote:
2. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.
10. Keep discussion civil and avoid inflammatory behavior that might distract attention from the topic. Argue the position, not the person.
What I take offense to is that, unable to beat the logic or reasoning of an opponent's argument, you are forced of necessity, to try to silence me by saying unless I provide X qualifications my opinion and freedom of speech are worthless and irrelevant. While I am not sure what communist country you speak this from, this is typically frowned upon in my native nation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 4:53 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 6:16 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 06-14-2010 9:11 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 265 of 283 (564975)
06-14-2010 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:10 AM


Re: Assumptions
If you really want to get into this, aren't YOU 'singularly unqualified' to make these objections according to forum rules?
No. Any forum member is qualified to point out that you are in breach of rule 4.
What I take offense to is that, unable to beat the logic or reasoning of an opponent's argument ...
You provided neither logic nor reasoning, but a fantasy unsupported by either. Unable to beat it? I'm unable to find it.
... you are forced of necessity, to try to silence me by saying unless I provide X qualifications my opinion and freedom of speech are worthless and irrelevant.
You are, of course, not telling the truth. And since you are being untruthful about what I have written on this very thread, I hardly know whom you can hope to deceive.
While I am not sure what communist country you speak this from, this is typically frowned upon in my native nation.
I live in the USA, the constitution of which guarantees my right to point out that unsupported assertions are unsupported assertions. It's called "freedom of speech", you may have heard of it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:10 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 266 of 283 (564995)
06-14-2010 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 5:10 AM


Really? really?
You are going to pull the classic fundie argument?
quote:
I you don't agree with me, therefore, you must be a communist.
Teabags away.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 5:10 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 267 of 283 (565001)
06-14-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 2:52 AM


Re: Assumptions
Hi Jzyehoshua,
Pay no attention to Dr Adequate, he's always grumpy.
But Dr Adequate does raise a good point concerning how you're approaching your topic. The Forum Guidelines try to encourage people to introduce evidence and make arguments in their own words rather than through links or lengthy cut-n-pastes.
But let's attempt to get the discussion started. How about we start with this from your excerpt from What You Ought to Know (which maybe should be renamed, "What What You Ought To Know ought to know"):
What You Ought To Know writes:
Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate.
What evidence leads you to believe this is an accurate statement?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 2:52 AM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 12:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 268 of 283 (565033)
06-14-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Percy
06-14-2010 9:42 AM


Re: Assumptions
quote:
But Dr Adequate does raise a good point concerning how you're approaching your topic. The Forum Guidelines try to encourage people to introduce evidence and make arguments in their own words rather than through links or lengthy cut-n-pastes.
True - as I looked at the forum rules, I realized I was skirting that line more than I'd realized. Still, I have less than 50 posts right now, not 4000, and until you just mentioned it it had not been objected to. I will avoid the cut and pastes from now on to make arguments primarily in my own words (though I already made that effort, it was in addition to the pasting).
However, I didn't see Dr. Adequate bring up this point. All I was hearing was, "unless you prove you're a scientist you have no room to say anything on this forum", a requirement I'd been unaware of. Naturally this appeared belittling, condescending, arrogant, spurious, and a direct assault on the American ideal of freedom of speech.
quote:
Let’s examine the facts around evolution: if it ever did take place, it isn’t now. At least not that anyone can demonstrate.
What evidence leads you to believe this is an accurate statement?
My point is that while we keep hearing about the ability of animals to make drastic evolutionary leaps between species, we have yet to see any evidence of it. As the Brothers Winn point out, we've been watching bacteria since the invention of the microscope, and while they have adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, higher form of life. Same with canaries. They may adapt within an apparent parent species, but do not become an entirely new line.
Were we still actively considering parent species as an alternative, which Darwin himself stated as the opposing view, then the evidence would appear telling that this is the case, and an objective examination lead to more thorough analysis of the competing possibility.
This is why Creationists always differ between microevolution and macroevolution. We can observe natural selection and adaptation right now. However it is faith by which one relies upon interspeciary evolution, which appears more a philosophy of Darwin's that all had a common ancestor, than one of his more solidly supported facts.
Evolutionists will say that it takes so long to occur we can't see this type of evolution, that it takes so long we won't be able to see it happening. Nevertheless, what it results is again, taking on faith that this is indeed what's happening. It's circumstantial evidence open to interpretation. We used interpretation to try and force the evidence to fit this view, rather than equally considering the alternative of parent species, lining up species to try and make orderly lines between one another.
However, this has also resulted in certain infamous fossil finds which were falsified (Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man). It has also resulted in several surprising mistakes recently, such as the discovery the newly christened 'rat squirrel' was in fact the already existing Laotian Rock Rat, or that Homo Floresiensis, aka hobbit man and labeled a missing link, had in fact lived up until modern times and thus could not be an ancestor, or that Habilis and Erectus lived at the same time and would have to be knocked off the lineage, or that Ardipithecus Ramidus, older than Lucy, looked nothing like an ape and walked upright. The news has had major press received that the human family tree is now instead a 'bush' with dead ends everywhere.
Again, not only is there a complete lack of proof for this interspeciary change, but discoveries are beginning to knock out one after another of the missing links that already exist, or else alleged new ones are found wrong. Yet at a time when we should be more seriously considering the possibility of parent species, many are still religiously adhering to Darwin's beliefs of a single common ancestor; macroevolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Percy, posted 06-14-2010 9:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 12:35 PM Jzyehoshua has replied
 Message 273 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-14-2010 6:00 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 274 by Percy, posted 06-15-2010 9:17 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 276 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2010 11:33 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 280 by Peepul, posted 06-25-2010 6:59 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 282 by Peepul, posted 06-25-2010 8:30 AM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 269 of 283 (565034)
06-14-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Jzyehoshua
06-14-2010 12:23 PM


Re: Assumptions
My point is that while we keep hearing about the ability of animals to make drastic evolutionary leaps between species, we have yet to see any evidence of it.
That's exactly what the fossil record shows us, transitions between species such as the hominid transitional fossils.
As the Brothers Winn point out, we've been watching bacteria since the invention of the microscope, and while they have adapted as bacteria, they've never become a new, higher form of life.
Why would they need to change into a "higher life form"? Bacteria are the most successful type of life on Earth. Single celled organisms make up the vast majority of the biomass on Earth.
Same with canaries. They may adapt within an apparent parent species, but do not become an entirely new line.
Evolution does not produce entirely new lines. Evolution produces species that are modifications of their ancestors. You are what your ancestors were, plus modifications. Humans are still apes, as was our common ancestor with apes. Humans are still primates as was our common ancestor with other primates. Humans are still mammals, as was our common ancestor with other mammals.
This is why Creationists always differ between microevolution and macroevolution. We can observe natural selection and adaptation right now. However it is faith by which one relies upon interspeciary evolution, which appears more a philosophy of Darwin's that all had a common ancestor, than one of his more solidly supported facts.
Is it by faith that we observe transitional fossils? Is it by faith that we observe humans and chimps sharing the same genetic markers that are indicative of common ancestry (e.g. shared psuedogenes, orthologous ERV's)? Is it by faith that we find agreement between the differences between the human and chimp genome and the observed mutation rate?
Common ancestry is supported by solid facts, despite your protestations.
Evolutionists will say that it takes so long to occur we can't see this type of evolution, that it takes so long we won't be able to see it happening.
We can see it in the genomes of living species and in the fossil record.
The news has had major press received that the human family tree is now instead a 'bush' with dead ends everywhere.
These fossils still demonstrate transitional features which is exactly what we should see if humans and chimps share a common ancestor.
Again, not only is there a complete lack of proof for this interspeciary change,
That is completely false. Genetics alone is enough to establish human and chimp common ancestry as a fact. The theory of evolution explains why we are different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 12:23 PM Jzyehoshua has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:22 PM Taq has replied

  
Jzyehoshua
Member (Idle past 761 days)
Posts: 153
Joined: 06-10-2010


Message 270 of 283 (565048)
06-14-2010 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Taq
06-14-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Assumptions
quote:
That is completely false. Genetics alone is enough to establish human and chimp common ancestry as a fact. The theory of evolution explains why we are different.
I know that they share in common a great percentage of their DNA (though I believe Neanderthal Man was even closer). It's around 95 or even 98%, correct?
And yet, genetics has now proven the existence of a 'mitochondrial eve', a direct human ancestor to all humans. By Darwin's own words, wouldn't this show evidence of parent species rather than all species having a common ancestor, since this is the exact sign he said would prove the alternate theory instead of his own?
quote:
When we attempt to estimate the amount of structural difference between the domestic races of the same species, we are soon involved in doubt, from not knowing whether they have descended from one or several parent-species. This point, if it could be cleared up, would be interesting; if, for instance, it could be shown that the greyhound, bloodhound, terrier, spaniel, and bull-dog, which we all know propagate their kind so truly, were the offspring of any single species, then such facts would have great weight in making us doubt about the immutability of the many very closely allied and natural speciesfor instance, of the many foxesinhabiting different quarters of the world. I do not believe, as we shall presently see, that all our dogs have descended from any one wild species; but, in the case of some other domestic races, there is presumptive, or even strong, evidence in favour of this view.
Isn't this the exact same thing he spoke of? Showing all human species descended singularly rather than via mass evolution? And that it would show parent species, not a single common ancestor for all species? And if not, then what evidence was he saying would be needed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 12:35 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Jzyehoshua, posted 06-14-2010 1:27 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied
 Message 272 by Taq, posted 06-14-2010 2:51 PM Jzyehoshua has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024