Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

not our RL, surely you jest Very Happy

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

He assumes that if i consider any part of Darwin's work to be reasonable and compelling, than i must therefore consider the entire body of his opus to be complete and inerrant.

I have neither assumed, stated , nor implied any such.

Setanta wrote:

farmerman wrote:
Youre confusing the way that science works by imposing the manner by which Creationism reaches its conclusions.

He does this all the time. In another thread, he quoted Darwin to me on the subject of race. This was after i had commented that there is only one race, the human race.

As you know, it was actually in direct response to your comment that 'race' was an 'alledgedly scientific' term.

And I quoted Darwin's use of the term, both in the subtitle to Origin of Species and in his arguments in Descent of Man. ( He made very frequent use of the term, many more references than I would have had room to quote.)

Basically I was agreeing that it had been used in pseudo-scientific publications during the period of time you had mentioned, but that didn't seem to please. Laughing

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL
Quote:
Q -- How do you know that X evolved from Y ?

A -- Because they are different species.

Q -- Why are they not considered the same species?

A -- Because we know that X evolved from Y.

Actually the argument goes more like this

A Did X and Y share common ancestors?
B. Lets look at the genetic makeup of the li
ving species, evidence of the fossil record,evidence of time and biogeographic distributions of X and Y. Also, let us compare the data that continental drift or other tectonics provides to understand the issues of the fossil record.

C. We conclude that X and Y share evolutionary predecessors and are strongly linked by evidence.

Inferences like this are simply that. Inferences.

Correllation is not necessarily indicative of causation. For instance, we may note that nearly all billionaires are above 30 years of age. Does that mean that achieving the 30th year is in some way causative to earning a billion dollars?

C'mon.

Quote:

genetic makeup of the living species

Why would it be surprising that two critters that live in the same or similar environments should be found to have many of the same genetic patterns to produce similar features (but necessarily identical) that will enable them to survive in the same environment and feast on the same diet, and overcome the same challenges of weather, predators, topography , etc ?

It doesn't mean that one 'evolved' from the other.

Or in some cases, as we have discussed, what are regarded are 'separate species' may actually be of the same stock, but artificially and arbitrarily labeled as separate for the convenience of taxonomists.

Quote:

evidence of time and biogeographic distributions

Similarly, the fact that one species is found to be more numerous than another at various times or in various locales doesn't mean that one 'evolved' from the other. What would be surprising would be if we determined that two critters happened to have ALWAYS had the same numbers of population at all times and in all places.

-------------------------------------------

If evolution is occurring now, it should be evident in literally millions of living examples of critters in transition, with new organs, biological systems etc sprouting up everywhere.

But we don't see this at all. The few weak examples that are usually pushed forward of modern day evolution are fish that produce fish and bacteria that produce bacteria. Laughing

Quote:

And if enough generqtions go by and if a population is isolated from its kin, then is a new species born

Sexual isolation of a population is known to produce largely negative (or at best, neutral) results among humans, not newly evolved 'species'. The negatives are often evident within just a few generations. But this is the process by which great leaps forward in evolution are purported to have occurred. Laughing

0 Replies

Did you even take a biology course in HS?. When did you turn off your mind? Laughing

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Did you even take a biology course in HS?. When did you turn off your mind?

Wow.

Devastating logic.

You got me convinced Farmerman.

Why did you wait so long?

I guess it's settled then. Just state or imply that those who disagree with you are stupid and you win all arguments.

BTW are you also going to be running for office, FM?

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

If evolution is occurring now, it should be evident in literally millions of living examples of critters in transition, with new organs, biological systems etc sprouting up everywhere.

. Youre right, that is what is happening. Im not Houdini but I can predict that a number of animals , whose ancestors were suited for one environment are changing largely (and smally) to adapt to others. We see giant armadillos and sloths in the fossil record, and hundreds of ancestors of cat-like creatures, fifty or more pachyderms,simians, reptiles with feathers and fish with necks and feet.

Quote:

Why would it be surprising that two critters that live in the same or similar environments should be found to have many of the same genetic patterns to produce similar features (but necessarily identical) that will enable them to survive in the same environment and feast on the same diet, and overcome the same challenges

. How about if we separate the two through time and then take their environments and rip them apart and float the species away from ezch other. We wind up with a "Family" of creatures whose ancestors can be seen fossilized on their "home turf" and then diverging with time and distance.

It would be interesting to note that several different families of animals and plants have adapted to similar environments with the same strategies oceans apart. Yet those very adaptations can be clearly seen to have been locally derived through time. A Cave salamder is similar to a cave lizard two continents apart. Cave fish of similar genera are similar to fossils of their "local" founder populations and not genetically related to those located in two different continents. Derivation of an adaptation is a key modification in biogeography. The derivation can only be as old as the biogeographic environment being adapted to, so , unless you stipulate to Creation taking place each day, then I say you are close to accepting the evidence of evolution.
Theres no mechanism in Creationism to account for all this derived diversity while still retaining the genetic code of founder populations. .

0 Replies

Quote:

Wow.

Devastating logic.

No, Im dead serious, did you ever take a biology course? I know you dont have a clue about geochem, but butting heads with you on my home subject is like ,well, I wont use my handy euphemism of parakeets and Beers Law.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If evolution is occurring now, it should be evident in literally millions of living examples of critters in transition, with new organs, biological systems etc sprouting up everywhere.

Where do you get this stuff? You and Gunga seem to have your own versions of 'Evolution' which are unrelated to the scientific version and which you try to tar and feather the original theory with.

real life wrote:

Quote:
And if enough generqtions go by and if a population is isolated from its kin, then is a new species born

Sexual isolation of a population is known to produce largely negative (or at best, neutral) results among humans, not newly evolved 'species'.

Unless of course the isolated population is large enough and continues to grow, in which case, the opposite of what you say is true (and matches with most 'actual' evolutionary scenarios).

The rest of what you wrote is so far off the mark I don't even know where to begin to try to explain anything (not that you read explanations anyway).

This last blast of propaganda you constructed isn't even well focused enough to be usable by bible-thumpers as a smoke screen around their own impotent arguments. I think you need to remain a bit more focused with your propaganda and try not to use big words. Remember, the bible-thumpers need short little sound bites with a specious appeal to common sense. Don't get too esoteric or you'll lose them. Now try again, I'm sure if you try hard enough you can help push the believers deeper into blissful ignorance while they parasitize the fruits of science and technology.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
If evolution is occurring now, it should be evident in literally millions of living examples of critters in transition, with new organs, biological systems etc sprouting up everywhere.

. Youre right, that is what is happening. Im not Houdini but I can predict that a number of animals , whose ancestors were suited for one environment are changing largely (and smally) to adapt to others. We see giant armadillos and sloths in the fossil record, and hundreds of ancestors of cat-like creatures, fifty or more pachyderms,simians, reptiles with feathers and fish with necks and feet.
Quote:
Why would it be surprising that two critters that live in the same or similar environments should be found to have many of the same genetic patterns to produce similar features (but necessarily identical) that will enable them to survive in the same environment and feast on the same diet, and overcome the same challenges
. How about if we separate the two through time and then take their environments and rip them apart and float the species away from ezch other. We wind up with a "Family" of creatures whose ancestors can be seen fossilized on their "home turf" and then diverging with time and distance.

It would be interesting to note that several different families of animals and plants have adapted to similar environments with the same strategies oceans apart. Yet those very adaptations can be clearly seen to have been locally derived through time. A Cave salamder is similar to a cave lizard two continents apart. Cave fish of similar genera are similar to fossils of their "local" founder populations and not genetically related to those located in two different continents. Derivation of an adaptation is a key modification in biogeography. The derivation can only be as old as the biogeographic environment being adapted to, so , unless you stipulate to Creation taking place each day, then I say you are close to accepting the evidence of evolution.

I see.

So , two species with similar features and similar genetic patterns to produce those features are definitely evidence of evolution.

Meanwhile, two species with similar features and NON-similar genetic patterns to produce those features are ALSO definitely evidence of evolution.

OK. Got it. Thanks.

(I'm more convinced all the time. Why didn't I see the light sooner?)

farmerman wrote:

Theres no mechanism in Creationism to account for all this derived diversity while still retaining the genetic code of founder populations.

You might want to rephrase that.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

two species with similar features and similar genetic patterns to produce those features are definitely evidence of evolution.

Meanwhile, two species with similar features and NON-similar genetic patterns to produce those features are ALSO definitely evidence of evolution.

OK. Got it. Thanks.

ANYTIME, However, to be accurate, the "EVIDENCE" is the genetic makeup and the fossil record and biogeographic distribution . Now if you could just dump this "flood" myth , or else we go buy you a pair of suntan shorts and safari jacket with all the pockets and a pith helmet. Then you can go on TV and ask the gullible for money for yer Creation Museum.
:wink:

0 Replies

Quote:

farmerman wrote:
Theres no mechanism in Creationism to account for all this derived diversity while still retaining the genetic code of founder populations.

You might want to rephrase that.

. WHY, do you have a mechanism that works? Why not just write it up and publish your evidence. Let the workers in the vineyard pass judgement. After all, this is a chat room, not a University.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

rl
Quote:
two species with similar features and similar genetic patterns to produce those features are definitely evidence of evolution.

Meanwhile, two species with similar features and NON-similar genetic patterns to produce those features are ALSO definitely evidence of evolution.

OK. Got it. Thanks.

ANYTIME

What is abundantly clear is that the evolutionists dearly love to have their cake and eat it too.

It matters not which way the evidence points, the answer is evolution.

If the genetic structures are similar, it's evolution.

If the genetic structures are not similar , it's evolution.

What this signifies is that evolutionary arguments citing genetic similarities are useless, because they would draw the same conclusion in the presence of the opposite evidence.

(Next, look for ros to chime in, bemoaning the fact that evolutionists need a concise 'soundbyte' answer in order to counter this short, yet elegant , argument. Too bad they haven't got an answer of any length.)

0 Replies

The argument lacks elegance for the good and sufficient reason that it is not true.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
farmerman wrote:
Theres no mechanism in Creationism to account for all this derived diversity while still retaining the genetic code of founder populations.

You might want to rephrase that.
. WHY, do you have a mechanism that works? Why not just write it up and publish your evidence. Let the workers in the vineyard pass judgement. After all, this is a chat room, not a University.

I'll give ya the benefit of the doubt on this one and assume that you were asleep at the switch when you responded.

You couldn't seriously mean that for (supernatural) creation to be accepted as a possibility that it requires a (natural) mechanism to be postulated.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The argument lacks elegance for the good and sufficient reason that it is not true.

Ok , which one of FM's positions ( he holds both) are falsifiable?

One position covers the bum of the other.

0 Replies

If he held both positions (and you making the claim does not make it so), either position would be falsifiable. As usual, you fling around scientific terms without the least notion of what they mean. All scientific statements are falsifiable--it's a base tenet of the scientific method.

While we're at it, Rosborne is the one who consistently and justifiably accuses you and your creationist buddies of using "sound bite" arguments. It's hilarious, but not unexpected, to see you attempt to co-opt that charge for your own use.

0 Replies

Quote:

You couldn't seriously mean that for (supernatural) creation to be accepted as a possibility that it requires a (natural) mechanism to be postulated.

. The evidence is what the evidence is, you are the one having the problem to make your story fit Either you must

1. Deny the evidence
or

2. Try to cobble a story with which Creationim is still in accord.

So far, all youve been trying to do is deny evidence or deny the underlying principles and governing laws. (Ya know, stuff like math, physics, chem, geology, microbiology )

Time for your vespers? Laughing

0 Replies

He needs to pray for more guidance.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

(Next, look for ros to chime in, bemoaning the fact that evolutionists need a concise 'soundbyte' answer in order to counter this short, yet elegant , argument. Too bad they haven't got an answer of any length.)

You're confusing the word 'elegant' with 'specious'. But I do like it's brevity. Maybe I'll switch to your side for a while, just because it's so easy to whip up a meaningless little ditty to fool the unwary.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

You couldn't seriously mean that for (supernatural) creation to be accepted as a possibility that it requires a (natural) mechanism to be postulated.

In other words, when it comes to answering FM's question, your answer is *poof*. Strange that you don't come up with a sound-bite for that. Instead you have to dance around it with obscure philosophical arguments.

I'll grant you consistency at least. *Poof* can be used to explain everything, but it's about as satisfying and valuable as a mirage in the desert.

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know