Evolution question of the day (Harry Potter, angels, different, before)

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by coosjoaquin

With shows like "Dinosaurs and Dragons: True legends", I fear that my brain might fall out from opening my mind so much.

I'm really dissappointed that this thread went down the achiles heel and false dichotomy path. Been there, done that.

I just saw a show on the Discovery Channel the other day suggesting that dragons might have been based on real-life creatures. It's not that far fetched.

But you're as guilty as anyone of thread-jacking and subject-changing.

[Braunwyn]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

Well here again we have more general statements without details. Could you give us some examples?

You want evidence that creationism isn't science? Ok, creationism isn't falsifiable. Creationism predicts nothing.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by Braunwyn

You want evidence that creationism isn't science? Ok, creationism isn't falsifiable. Creationism predicts nothing.

same thing could be said regarding evolution.

How exactly can we falsify evolution?

[SuSuSushi]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

same thing could be said regarding evolution.

How exactly can we falsify evolution?

Once again, you are confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Please learn the difference.

[baxendale]

What about the Platypus?
Sure it does not qualify as a transitional fossil, ('cause it's alive today)
But it's genome shares features with reptiles, mammals and birds.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by kdbrich

same thing could be said regarding evolution.

How exactly can we falsify evolution?

Using the scientific method, obviously. One thing that seriously put evolution to the test was the discovery of DNA. If the tests on DNA didn't fit the concepts of evolution, then it would be disproved. Instead, it has validated evolution and strengthened our understanding of it. On top of DNA studies, there are many studies in a wide range of fields that could disprove evolution as well: geology, radiology, biology, physiology, climatology, paleontology, ad infinitum.

Evolution stands up to all those tests, but the only things creationists come up with to attempt to disprove evolution are speculation, unsupported assertions and pseudoscience.

[rifleman]

Originally Posted by Campbell34

And do all believers in evolution agree that the transionals you have actually seen are true transionals? The transionals you have actually had in your hand. Would you say those transionals are the slam dunk that proves Evolution?

They are called "pretty convincing evidence suggesting something other than the far less rational "Insta-Poof", Tom. most of us like to have somewhat believable theories by our side in a discussion. Not silly, mostly disproved peasant fables.

And, when coupled with other verifiable evidence, from other disciplines, suhc as geology, archeology, nuclear dating methods, etc., an overall picture, which satisfies a number of nagging questions posed by your "I-P" theory, leads to some inescapable conclusions. At least to those who don't buy into mythology.

And the difference between you and I is the fact, that you believe in your own assumptions about evidence you have observed. I on the other hand, believe in a God who has revealed Himself to me. It's obvious, one of us are wrong.

No, the difference is in the degree of willingness to explore alternatre ideas, tom. We all make assumptions. None are spared. You assume you've talked to a real god, but since I "know" there isn't one, just who, then, did you actually talk to, I ask?

Sigh... C34 & kd, please read my next post, following this one. It'll be my last here, though I'll of course look for your wonderful, open-minded responses.

Originally Posted by SuSuSushi

How do you know I haven't gone and seen it? Jumping to conclusions yet again, tsk tsk.

And no, it certainly doesn't require an open mind -- it requires a mind that throws away all reason and sanity and clings to fantastical notions -- like people frolicking with the dinosaurs. Puh-leeze.

I love it, coos... open your brain too far and it will fall out. Hee Hee! Actually, I did go to this fantasy sight, whose only purpose is to mis-inform those who desperately want and need that.

I can't seem to get the fundies to go to my links though... Whose minds are clouded and clamped shut here? I'll go on record and state that it is NEVER a true scientist who is afraid to look at anything new. It's just that after a while, we've seen everything that Xtianity has to offer, and, given that tiresome and endless replay, we have, you bet, formed some inescapable conclusions. There's nothing new from them, except when they try to glom onto a new scientific discovery and bend it to their nefarious needs. (aka: Mitochondrial Eve).

Originally Posted by kdbrich

same thing could be said regarding evolution.

How exactly can we falsify evolution?

Easily. Did you EVER attend even one science class, kd? for example, when your Gawd descends, steps out of his Starship Type 7 (sub-type AgNo 123) and shows us the sample of DNA broth he poured into the primordial broth 25 million years ago, we'll know.... well I contradict myself here. That would only prove an ID, not that he didn't intend for Evolution to start up when he "seeded" the broth.

Evolution is how it works. Proven.

But otherwise,to falsify any theory (gravity, home economics, Xtianity, etc.), you just do some careful research and disprove some key point(s). Happens all the time in science, where we happily refute each other. The diff is, this advances our understanding in the long term. Your approach stilts the advancement of knowledge, requiring abject and utter unquestioning obedience to the Book. No exceptions; punishment by stoning or burning in the public square, to suitably impress (terrify?) the pesaantry into what they should expect if they stray into inquisitive thinking.

Unfortunately, kd, you can't disprove Creation; no-one can, which makes it non-science; as in irreproducable results or research options. It misses the boat completely as being in any way logical, step-wise, reproducable or even rational. It's just mythology, and you even agree on that.

***(Ooooo Ooooo Oooo!~ This just in on NPR this very minute: there's been a survey just done by Trinity College (aka: a theist organization) that the number of believers in Christianity has dropped by 10% in just the last decade. Huzzah for open minded thinking and education! Yes!! Proof that WE ARE EVOLVING! Yippers!)***

I think I'll have an early drink to toast this obvious & irrefutible proof of advancing thinking & education in the average American. And to think this study came from a theist college! Wonder what the true number really is? I'll bet it's more like, oh...15 - 20%.

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

Using the scientific method, obviously. One thing that seriously put evolution to the test was the discovery of DNA. If the tests on DNA didn't fit the concepts of evolution, then it would be disproved. Instead, it has validated evolution and strengthened our understanding of it. On top of DNA studies, there are many studies in a wide range of fields that could disprove evolution as well: geology, radiology, biology, physiology, climatology, paleontology, ad infinitum.

Evolution stands up to all those tests, but the only things creationists come up with to attempt to disprove evolution are speculation, unsupported assertions and pseudoscience.

DNA could also be used to demonstrate the idea of common design.

Data can be massaged to "prove" evolution...if you want it to. Of course, it still doesn't explain stuff like the cambrian explosion, or irreducible complexity.

[rifleman]

Here's to you and your mind-set, Tom old chap! you too, kd!

After my last few posts and the usual deflections, I’ve come to some final conclusions for my last post on this thread.

First, Tom, you have proven, for all objective observers here, that you are incapable of useful two-way conversations where our input and questions are respected and answered by you, as we do yours. I will, therefore, ask a few more questions, but I’ll answer them for you. Save you a Lot of time, man!

1. What, exactly, do YOU mean by “transitional form”? I’ll assume you mean something other than (or, in the arrogant language of The Church and Christianity, “less than”) a current human form.

So, I’m assuming you understand that such a form would have to have different DNA, right? But that it would be something demonstrably en-route to our exact human DNA sequences. In other words, only slighty different to be a “transition” between a monkey and us.

Sound reasonable? After all, if it had DNA identical to ours, what would it be but us, right? Right? I’ll assume you agree.

2. The current chimp’s DNA is, what? (I have no time to look it up right now, but we’ve ALL seen the number) …about 96% the same as ours. In other words, it’s already just slightly different than ours. At this point in Evolutionary time. Right now. Compare them side by side and you'll find that many/most of our structures, biochemistry, compositions, proteins, interelationships, behaviors and on and on, are….

IDENTICAL! Shall I repeat that word for you, Tom?

3. What accounts for those visible (and some invisible) differences, and in what areas are they different? Simple! A few mutations of the DNA sequence. Many of us (tho’ probably not you) do understand now, exacty how, and how often, those mutations occur, what they do, how they affect phenotypical (outward appearances or functionalities) as controlled by the genotypical (internal gene sequence) differences.

In what areas, exactly, would you expect us to be different, given a logical examination of the “typical outcome” of Evolution? Well, perhaps we’d be able to walk upright, not too much at first (Voila! We in fact already have fossil forms of semi-upright man); a different, slightly larger brain case (ditto of those forms), different pelvic structure to better support an upright walk and stance, for better walking speed and a higher viewpoint (ditto…), brain case size, dentition, musculature, and other obvious advantages or adaptations (ditto, ditto, ditto…).

So… what do we find when we look at what we already have in the way of those fossils? Exactly those things, and, amazingly, when those fossil humanoid remains are independently dated, by standard double-blind research methods (look it up, Tom), they come out in exactly the required and anticipated sequence of observed “improvements” on the geo-chonological time scale. Those fossil forms we have in droves. Unless you now state that they're all faked; a world-wide conspiracy no less.

In other words, our "theory" all links together towards that "Greater Unified Theory" that so terrifies Christians. Coming soon, BTW, to a Church near you!

(I also must note that the archeo-dating technician, who only wants to go home to his new wife and a nice dinner, could care less about what order they are in, and couldn’t bias the outcome anyhow because the samples are only numbered chunks of a bit of bone sent to him in a box.

The happy conclusions come later, back in the archeologist's lab. Then to celebrate another benchmark bit of irrefutible proof, there's drinks all around!)


What, exactly about such thinking, such observations, such methodologies and such evidence, can’t you comprehend, Tom? Or is it a total lack of interest in learning what actually happened? Accusations of fraud or of science’s supposed narrow focus or blindness to the “natural facts” all around us is, simply, tossed out the window here. You continue to lose in that regard.


Finally, if you desperately need (or actually want..) to see a “transitional form” for your own satisfaction, one whose DNA is just slightly less “advanced” than yours in the key morphological elements I noted above, take the bus down to your local zoo and visit the monkey house, and then move on over a few million years in Evolution to view the Great Apes. Stare into those soulful, knowing Ape eyes. Say hello to your obvious and proven cousins.

Then go home and look into the mirror. Voila! A “Transitional form”, undisputable! (Well, except by you…)

It’s been frustrating as usual. I’ll no doubt come upon your “unique” form of logic and thinking on another forum thread in the future, but my work here is done.

(And wow again! 10 - 20% fewer believers in Xtianity in the last 10 years! Real progress, as measured by a Church College no less! Kinda like hearing you have 20% fewer cavities, wouldn't you say?


Wow! The healings proceed!)

Bye Now. P&L2A rflmn™

[kdbrich]

Originally Posted by rifleman

Here's to you and your mind-set, Tom old chap! you too, kd!

After my last few posts and the usual deflections, I’ve come to some final conclusions for my last post on this thread.

First, Tom, you have proven, for all objective observers here, that you are incapable of useful two-way conversations where our input and questions are respected and answered by you, as we do yours. I will, therefore, ask a few more questions, but I’ll answer them for you. Save you a Lot of time, man!

1. What, exactly, do YOU mean by “transitional form”? I’ll assume you mean something other than (or, in the arrogant language of The Church and Christianity, “less than”) a current human form.

Give us an actual half-man, half-ape, please.

So, I’m assuming you understand that such a form would have to have different DNA, right? But that it would be something demonstrably en-route to our exact human DNA sequences. In other words, only slighty different to be a “transition” between a monkey and us.

Sound reasonable? After all, if it had DNA identical to ours, what would it be but us, right? Right? I’ll assume you agree.

2. The current chimp’s DNA is, what? (I have no time to look it up right now, but we’ve ALL seen the number) …about 96% the same as ours. In other words, it’s already just slightly different than ours. At this point in Evolutionary time. Right now. Compare them side by side and you'll find that many/most of our structures, biochemistry, compositions, proteins, interelationships, behaviors and on and on, are….

Evolution states that we have common ancestors, right?

Give me evidence of that ancestor, please.

IDENTICAL! Shall I repeat that word for you, Tom?

3. What accounts for those visible (and some invisible) differences, and in what areas are they different? Simple! A few mutations of the DNA sequence. Many of us (tho’ probably not you) do understand now, exacty how, and how often, those mutations occur, what they do, how they affect phenotypical (outward appearances or functionalities) as controlled by the genotypical (internal gene sequence) differences.

Or, a common designer?

In what areas, exactly, would you expect us to be different, given a logical examination of the “typical outcome” of Evolution? Well, perhaps we’d be able to walk upright, not too much at first (Voila! We in fact already have fossil forms of semi-upright man); a different, slightly larger brain case (ditto of those forms), different pelvic structure to better support an upright walk and stance, for better walking speed and a higher viewpoint (ditto…), brain case size, dentition, musculature, and other obvious advantages or adaptations (ditto, ditto, ditto…).

So… what do we find when we look at what we already have in the way of those fossils? Exactly those things, and, amazingly, when those fossil humanoid remains are independently dated, by standard double-blind research methods (look it up, Tom), they come out in exactly the required sequence of observed “improvements” on thed geochonological time scale.

Actually....the fossil evidence is severely lacking.

In other words, our "theory" all links together towards that "Greater Unified Theory" that so terrifies Christians. Coming soon, BTW, to a Church near you!

(I also must note that the archeo-dating technician, who only wants to go home to his new wife and a nice dinner, could care less about what order they are in, and couldn’t bias the outcome anyhow because the samples are only numbered chunks of a bit of bone sent to him in a box.

The happy conclusions come later, back in the archeologist's lab. Then to celebrate another benchmark bit of irrefutible proof, there's drinks all around!)


What, exactly about such thinking, such observations, such methodologies and such evidence, can’t you comprehend, Tom? Or is it a total lack of interest in learning what actually happened? Accusations of fraud or of science’s supposed narrow focus or blindness to the “natural facts” all around us is, simply, tossed out the window here. You lose in that reagrd.


Finally, if you desperately need (or actually want..) to see a “transitional form” for your own satisfaction, one whose DNA is just slightly less “advanced” than yours in the key morphological elements I noted above, take the bus down to your local zoo and visit the monkey house, and then move on over a few million years in Evolution to view the Great Apes. Stare into those soulful, knowing Ape eyes. Say hello to your obvious and proven cousins.

They're still apes. I want to see the common ancestor that you say we evolved from.