solid proof of evolution

Posted by Darth Omar View Post
But as strictly a philosophical matter, it’s quite rational to infer design based on the evidence.

Why is that so threatening to some people?



No of course it is not rational at all to infer that. Feel free to articulate in English exactly upon what evidence you draw the inference(s)

What is understandable and lamentable is how some uneducated and undisciplined people buy in to the anthropomorphism that projects the
false sense of human intention upon the natural universe. It's the most important thing to science that this fault does not occur.

As scientists we want to understand the world as an intelligent robot. What your sad religion does is explain reality 90 percent injecting
human emotion and experience onto the subject of investigation.
 
NOVA said:
Thats what they do with evolution....
you 'surmise' your own evidence ?..rats have legs and so do humans, hence etc. etc........sounds exactly like what those Bible thumpers do....
Click to expand...

What? Evolutionists have real evidence and they track it back a long long way. The bible has zip, just a belief with no new evidence and no old evidence. Is that what you really thought? Damn.
 
CFM said:
It's a theory. You said so yourself.
Click to expand...

In science a Theory is supported by evidence, predictive testing and observation, not the more common usage which would be called a hypothesis in science. So, when a detective has a theory, if he were a scientist he would call it a hypothesis, once he has evidence the detective calls it proven, while science then calls it a Theory. You shouldn't attempt to be a wordsmith unless you happen to actually understand the meaning of the words in context.
 
Damocles said:
In science a Theory is supported by evidence, predictive testing and observation, not the more common usage which would be called a hypothesis in science. So, when a detective has a theory, if he were a scientist he would call it a hypothesis, once he has evidence the detective calls it proven, while science then calls it a Theory. You shouldn't attempt to be a wordsmith unless you happen to actually understand the meaning of the words in context.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the evidence, predictive testing, and observation supporting a theory and claimed to have proven something that later changes because someone else found different "evidence" that refutes what has been called proven fact? 2 + 2 = 4 is a fact. Something claimed as proven fact doesn't change. If it does, it really wasn't a fact at all.
 
Nordberg said:
no. Distances are too far. Alpha Centauri, our nearest galaxy neighbor is 4.4 light years away. We could go there , if we have 100 years to do it. Then a message sent back would take 4.5 years.
Click to expand...

In other words, you expect people to believe what you say and use the "because I said so" argument to back it up. Sorry, no proof of life on other planets, it doesn't exist.
 
Darth Omar said:
But as strictly a philosophical matter, it’s quite rational to infer design based on the evidence.
Why is that so threatening to some people?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if "threatened" is the right word. What most of us who accept evolution as an evidence-based explanation don't care for is the insistence of some Intelligent Design proponents that ID be taught in public schools alongside real science, as though it too is evidence-based.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm not sure if "threatened" is the right word. What most of us who accept evolution as an evidence-based explanation don't care for is the insistence of some Intelligent Design proponents that ID be taught in public schools alongside real science, as though it too is evidence-based.
Click to expand...

Two sides to that coin.

If they would stick to strictly ‘evidence-based’ in teaching evolution they can’t go beyond macro evolution. They should stress that origin of life is NOT evolution. And in fact, it’s a different problem altogether—and they should explain why that is.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'm not sure if "threatened" is the right word. What most of us who accept evolution as an evidence-based explanation don't care for is the insistence of some Intelligent Design proponents that ID be taught in public schools alongside real science, as though it too is evidence-based.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the evidence based "facts" that later change when some contradicting "facts" are found?
 
Darth Omar said:
Two sides to that coin.

If they would stick to strictly ‘evidence-based’ in teaching evolution they can’t go beyond macro evolution. They should stress that origin of life is NOT evolution. And in fact, it’s a different problem altogether—and they should explain why that is.
Click to expand...

I've taken several college-level biology courses and have never had an instructor discuss the origin of life in a definitive manner; it has always been pointed out that we simply do not know at this time how and when the first lifeforms (generally believed to be the prokaryotes) arose.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I've taken several college-level biology courses and have never had an instructor discuss the origin of life in a definitive manner; it has always been pointed out that we simply do not know at this time how and when the first lifeforms (generally believed to be the prokaryotes) arose.
Click to expand...

Unless you’re actually studying evolution, evolution typically serves as a kind of back-story in biology related courses. A home-schooled person in ID could understand the role of mutations in natural selection as well as anyone.

In my own line of work one could either assume the four tendons that comprise the rotator cuff are an evolutionary adaptation—-or that they were designed to function a certain way, and it makes zero practical difference. Ironically, it’s arguably more helpful to think in terms of design since tendons and bones function according to engineering principles. Pulleys, levers etc.

We’ve had similar debates actually lol.
 
THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF BROWN TROUT (SALMO TRUTTA L.) INFERRED FROM PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC, NESTED CLADE, AND MISMATCH ANALYSES OF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA VARIATION
No Access
Louis Bernatchez
The Society for the Study of Evolution

Received: March 7, 2000; Accepted: September 18, 2000
[+] Author & Article Info
Abstract
Phylogeographic, nested clade, and mismatch analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation were used to infer the temporal dynamics of distributional and demographic history of brown trout (Salmo trutta). Both new and previously published data were analyzed for 1794 trout from 174 populations. This combined analysis improved our knowledge of the complex evolutionary history of brown trout throughout its native Eurasian and North African range of distribution in many ways. It confirmed the existence of five major evolutionary lineages that evolved in geographic isolation during the Pleistocene and have remained largely allopatric since then. These should be recognized as the basic evolutionarily significant units within brown trout. Finer phylogeographic structuring was also resolved within major lineages. Contrasting temporal juxtaposition of different evolutionary factors and timing of major demographic expansions were observed among lineages. These unique evolutionary histories have been shaped both by the differential latitudinal impact of glaciations on habitat loss and potential for dispersal, as well as climatic impacts and landscape heterogeneity that translated in a longitudinal pattern of genetic diversity and population structuring at more southern latitudes. This study also provided evidence for the role of biological factors in addition to that of physical isolation in limiting introgressive hybridization among major trout lineages.
https://doi.org/10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055[0351:TEHOBT]2.0.CO;2


Strange, this scientist tracing the evolutionary history of brown trout never consults Genesis... I mean, he cites about 200 other scientific papers. Not even once?

I will post a scientific paper every day exploring the biblical theory of forms. 0-1 and counting.
 
CFM said:
In other words, you expect people to believe what you say and use the "because I said so" argument to back it up. Sorry, no proof of life on other planets, it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

No, I expect people who can think, to realize that the distances in space make contact with aliens very difficult. You really have trouble with logic and information, don't you? Mathematically , life of other planets is assured. http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html The Drake equation . Truth is we have fond thousands of planets since the Drake equation . It i s more positive now, because it did not factor in as many planets as there are.
 
Last edited:
Micawber said:
THE EVOLUTIONARY HISTORY OF BROWN TROUT (SALMO TRUTTA L.) INFERRED FROM PHYLOGEOGRAPHIC, NESTED CLADE, AND MISMATCH ANALYSES OF MITOCHONDRIAL DNA VARIATION
No Access
Louis Bernatchez
The Society for the Study of Evolution

Received: March 7, 2000; Accepted: September 18, 2000
[+] Author & Article Info
Abstract
Phylogeographic, nested clade, and mismatch analyses of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) variation were used to infer the temporal dynamics of distributional and demographic history of brown trout (Salmo trutta). Both new and previously published data were analyzed for 1794 trout from 174 populations. This combined analysis improved our knowledge of the complex evolutionary history of brown trout throughout its native Eurasian and North African range of distribution in many ways. It confirmed the existence of five major evolutionary lineages that evolved in geographic isolation during the Pleistocene and have remained largely allopatric since then. These should be recognized as the basic evolutionarily significant units within brown trout. Finer phylogeographic structuring was also resolved within major lineages. Contrasting temporal juxtaposition of different evolutionary factors and timing of major demographic expansions were observed among lineages. These unique evolutionary histories have been shaped both by the differential latitudinal impact of glaciations on habitat loss and potential for dispersal, as well as climatic impacts and landscape heterogeneity that translated in a longitudinal pattern of genetic diversity and population structuring at more southern latitudes. This study also provided evidence for the role of biological factors in addition to that of physical isolation in limiting introgressive hybridization among major trout lineages.
https://doi.org/10.1554/0014-3820(2001)055[0351:TEHOBT]2.0.CO;2


Strange, this scientist tracing the evolutionary history of brown trout never consults Genesis... I mean, he cites about 200 other scientific papers. Not even once?

I will post a scientific paper every day exploring the biblical theory of forms. 0-1 and counting.
Click to expand...

No one disputes that kind of evolution.

Interesting article though lol.
 
Nordberg said:
No, I expect people who can think, to realize that the distances in space make contact with aliens very difficult. You really have trouble with logic and information, don't you? Mathematically , life of other planets is assured. http://www.astrodigital.org/astronomy/drake_equation.html The Drake equation . Truth is we have fond thousands of planets since the Drake equation . It i s more positive now, because it did not factor in as many planets as there are.
Click to expand...

In other words you make a claim you can't support with anything but speculation and expect others to believe it because you said so. I would expect people that make such claims to provide an argument to back it up other than "because I said so".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top