|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5937 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
IamJoseph raised the issue of how speech developed in man as an example of a critical weakness of evolutionary theory, not as an example of convincing evidence. I think those who want to discuss the evolution of speech should go to another thread. This thread is for proposing and dissecting examples of compelling evidence for evolutionary theory.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Start a new thread, and tell me when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras/ I'm mildly curious as to what you think that means, and why you said it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... when you expect the next *COMMON* descent of talking Zebras. Zebras already talk - just because you can't understand them doesn't mean they don't tell a story. The story they tell is evolution -- the kind of evolution this thread is about, and the evidence they are for it. They are on topic. The story that creationists tell on the other hand (with comments like this), is that in spite of supposed human speech and communication ability, they do not understand evolution at all ... or forum guidelines. You are not on topic. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3695 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: Sure I can nominate the best candidate of what constitutes the strongest evidence for evolution. Its the 'seed', quite a comprehensive term for a factor which can carry and pass on all required data. If there be any disputation of this factor, the best way is by elimination - and here a counterpart to this thread would help. How can one nominate the best candidate if they are not certain what does NOT apply. How about a thread, MOST CONVINCING EVIDENCE AGAINST EVOLUTION? Its called the 'devil's deciple' principle, and it works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This thread might represent an opportunity for moderators to discourage members from swathing the topic in layers of illogic. Better a thread sit idle than descend into nonsense.
Participants in this thread who would really like to discuss some other topic are hopefully aware that any member may propose a new topic over at [forum=-25]. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The most convincing evidence that creationism is wrong is that there is no usable definition of "biblical kind" -- and the reason that this is evidence for evolution is that this is what makes such a definition impossible.
Most attempts at definitions depend more on example than on criteria (a dog is a dog, all descendants of dogs will be dogs), and those that do try to draw some kind of criteria use evolution language. Note that AiG specifically statesMissing Link | Answers in Genesis quote: LOL Enjoy compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22499 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This is off-topic, and I don't agree that creationism's difficulties defining kind comprise evidence for evolution, but I would like to briefly note one thing about this AIG proposal for a definition of kind:
AIG writes: Groups of living organisms belong in the same created kind if they have descended from the same ancestral gene pool. So kind would rely upon determinations of genetic relatedness through genetic analysis, which would lead to the conclusion from data already in our possession that all of life is just one kind. This would change their "You only get dogs from dogs," argument to "You only get life from life." And who could argue with that! --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1432 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't agree that creationism's difficulties defining kind comprise evidence for evolution, This is not an argument that NOT(creationism) = evolution, but that the evidence for evolution has such depth that any definition of kind immediately runs into problems with that evidence or with the separation of animals into distinct kinds.
...note one thing about this AIG proposal for a definition of kind: So kind would rely upon determinations of genetic relatedness through genetic analysis, which would lead to the conclusion from data already in our possession that all of life is just one kind. Case in point. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : not compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024