What is evolution and how do we know it's right?

[Autodidact]

This thread was started in response to HaLi, to talk about what the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is and how science knows that it is correct.

[ThatGirlAgain]

no choice but to chase their tails around in circles arguing

rhetoric and biased nonsense

all the twoddle and all the woffle that supports it.

had to scurry off when they found this difference

can only go around in cirlces and offer more and more biased nonsense, excuses and unsubstantiated stories

Moderator Warning


Too much incivility all in one place. This one is a warning.

DEBATE THE TOPIC ONLY, NOT THE DEBATERS


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Bust Nak]

There is no doubt about the fact that some Muslims go along with evolutionary ideology and psychology up to a certain point but I am am not certain that they have thought through the implications of such atheistic beliefs or that they do not have a problem with referring to themselves as apes or finding it offensive when others refer to them, Prophet Muhammed and other Muslims as apes.

Well that particlar Muslim thought through it enough to write an article on it. And clearly stated that the implication all human being apes is that it remind Muslims "of the humble origins of their created form." It's not like he didn't know what evolution of mankind would mean. And no, there is a reason why it's called theistic evolution, and the reason isn't because it's atheistic.

Does your part-time British Imam have no problem believing in an atheistic belief system or with referring to himself and Prophet Muhammed as apes or finding it offensive when others refer to him, other Muslims and Prophet Muhammed as apes? You can quote him at length if you like.

You mean he stating that the theory evolution doesn't insult anyone in writing isn't enough to convince you that he have no problem with referring to all human including himself and the prophets as apes? What's wrong with the quote I already provided?

[otseng]

Obviously. You are not even a very clever human since you don't seem to be able to differentiate between humans and apes and think you are a member of some Ape Family.

Moderator Warning


Please avoid making personal comments of any type.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[McCulloch]

The more books you read about your being an ape the more likely you are to think you are!

Biologically all of these terms apply to humans: Life, Animal, Vertebrate, Mammal, Primate, Ape. Do you only find the term Ape objectionable or do you find it offensive when we refer to ourselves with any of these other biologically correct terms?

[Neandertal Ned]

There is no doubt about the fact that some Muslims go along with evolutionary ideology and psychology up to a certain point but I am am not certain that they have thought through the implications of such atheistic beliefs or that they do not have a problem with referring to themselves as apes or finding it offensive when others refer to them, Prophet Muhammed and other Muslims as apes.

Well that particlar Muslim thought through it enough to write an article on it. And clearly stated that the implication all human being apes is that it remind Muslims "of the humble origins of their created form." It's not like he didn't know what evolution of mankind would mean. And no, there is a reason why it's called theistic evolution, and the reason isn't because it's atheistic.

Darwin's so-called "theory" of evolution is atheistic. The concept of "natural selection" precludes and replaces divine or supernatural intervention or guidance with the so-called natural "process" of evolution by mutational modification. The notion of theistic evolution is an oxymoron since it contradicts Darwin's "mechanism" of "natural selection.

Does your part-time British Imam have no problem believing in an atheistic belief system or with referring to himself and Prophet Muhammed as apes or finding it offensive when others refer to him, other Muslims and Prophet Muhammed as apes? You can quote him at length if you like.

You mean he stating that the theory evolution doesn't insult anyone in writing isn't enough to convince you that he have no problem with referring to all human including himself and the prophets as apes? What's wrong with the quote I already provided?

It's only one man's opinion and he certainly isn't one of Islam's leading scholars or representing those who believe in Islamic or Jewish Creationism.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123724852205449221.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ose-darwin

[micatala]

There is no doubt about the fact that some Muslims go along with evolutionary ideology and psychology up to a certain point but I am am not certain that they have thought through the implications of such atheistic beliefs or that they do not have a problem with referring to themselves as apes or finding it offensive when others refer to them, Prophet Muhammed and other Muslims as apes.

Well that particlar Muslim thought through it enough to write an article on it. And clearly stated that the implication all human being apes is that it remind Muslims "of the humble origins of their created form." It's not like he didn't know what evolution of mankind would mean. And no, there is a reason why it's called theistic evolution, and the reason isn't because it's atheistic.

Darwin's so-called "theory" of evolution is atheistic. The concept of "natural selection" precludes and replaces divine or supernatural intervention or guidance with the so-called natural "process" of evolution by mutational modification. The notion of theistic evolution is an oxymoron since it contradicts Darwin's "mechanism" of "natural selection.

THis is a false statement. I am a Christian and I accept the fact that evolution of life has occurred along the lines of Darwin's theories. So do millions of other Christians.

Your assertion is nothing more than a false and awkward attempt to redefine belief in God for everyone according to your own personal views.

That, in fact, is not Biblical. Read Romans Chapter 14. Paul writes it is not your place to judge another believer. It is to the Lord that he is responsible. Your personal opinion is irrelevant.

[Bust Nak]

Darwin's so-called "theory" of evolution is atheistic. The concept of "natural selection" precludes and replaces divine or supernatural intervention or guidance with the so-called natural "process" of evolution by mutational modification.

Sure, most things are atheistic, but that doesn't stop theists from attaching theistic significance to them - people thank God for the most trivial of coincidences. There are plenty of gaps in evolution for theists to stick their gods into.

The notion of theistic evolution is an oxymoron since it contradicts Darwin's "mechanism" of "natural selection.

Theistic evolution contradicts Darwin's naturalistic evolution, but that doesn't make theistic evolution is an oxymoron.

It's only one man's opinion and he certainly isn't one of Islam's leading scholars or representing those who believe in Islamic or Jewish Creationism.

None the less, do you accept that there are Muslims who accept evolution and doesn't find the theory, including the implication that Muhammad was an ape, offensive/insulting?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123724852205449221.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ose-darwin

Giving me examples of Jews/Muslims/Arabs creationists doesn't address the point that there are Jews/Muslims/Arabs who accepts evolution along with its implications. Can you now imagine Jews, Arabs or Muslims calling themselves apes?

[Goat]

Darwin's so-called "theory" of evolution is atheistic. The concept of "natural selection" precludes and replaces divine or supernatural intervention or guidance with the so-called natural "process" of evolution by mutational modification.

Sure, most things are atheistic, but that doesn't stop theists from attaching theistic significance to them - people thank God for the most trivial of coincidences. There are plenty of gaps in evolution for theists to stick their gods into.

The notion of theistic evolution is an oxymoron since it contradicts Darwin's "mechanism" of "natural selection.

Theistic evolution contradicts Darwin's naturalistic evolution, but that doesn't make theistic evolution is an oxymoron.

It's only one man's opinion and he certainly isn't one of Islam's leading scholars or representing those who believe in Islamic or Jewish Creationism.

None the less, do you accept that there are Muslims who accept evolution and doesn't find the theory, including the implication that Muhammad was an ape, offensive/insulting?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123724852205449221.html

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... ose-darwin

Giving me examples of Jews/Muslims/Arabs creationists doesn't address the point that there are Jews/Muslims/Arabs who accepts evolution along with its implications. Can you now imagine Jews, Arabs or Muslims calling themselves apes?

I am Jewish. I am human. Humans are a type of Great Ape. I accept I am a human, which is a type of Great Ape. Therefore, Ned has been shown to be incorrect.

[Ozgirl]

Likewise, there is no justification at all to the claim that human chromosome 2 is the fusion of chimp genes 2a & 2b. This link sums it up nicely with the evolutionary research used to support their claims being cited.

http://creation.com/chromosome-2-fusion-1

Here is snip from one...

Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13-2q14.1.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12421751

Then on they go to explain why what is not the same still is the same. It is all biased and assumptive rhetoric. It is all for believers in the TOE philosophy to believe. It is not empirical data.


"Other problems with the fusion theory include the fact that standard cytogenetic techniques, such as C-banding, have detected significantly less heterochromatic centromeric DNA on the long arm of human chromosome 2 than predicted by the fusion model. Evolutionists claim this is because the bulk of the centromeric repetitive DNA has been lost.13 Conversely, it is more likely that the so-called cryptic centromeric DNA never existed."

"Mutations of the magnitude needed to support a fusion event pose serious cytogenetic problems both for the organism during regular somatic cell growth related to mitosis and during the meiotic events occurring in the germ-line tissues. Proper alignment requires the near-identical structure of each pair so that each chromosome aligns only with its sister chromosome. Chromosomal fusion is one major common cause of infertility. If meiosis does occur despite the aberration, the embryo produced from fertilization of these gametes typically self-aborts."

The best evidence that mankind has no relation to any other ape and the best differentiation between an ape and man is the difference in chromosome count. I say this because a child can differentiate a human out of any bunch of apes but adult evolutionists are unable to. That is what evolutionary science does to ones mind.


Evolutionists had to scurry off when they found this difference in chromosome count and explain it in evolutionary terms. To do this they had to put their evogoggles on, ignore any difference, find 2 chimp chromosome that likely have nothing to do with the human ch2, and come up with some good story telling to explain why some humans do not carry 48 chromosomes and why they are disimilar. They pretend to see 2 centromeres, they pretend much. Of course some apes have different chomosome counts, but none have 46 like mankind. This to me demonstrates that a variety of apes were created prior to man.

From here evolutionists can only go around in cirlces and offer more and more biased nonsense, excuses and unsubstantiated stories that mean absolutely nothing more than they have to make it look like it all evolved. They do not have credible genomic evidence and they do not have fossil evidence to back their claims. It is truely a waste of time debating evolutionists. If I leave the forum for another week they will still be tail chasing when I come back.

The story is this. At some time after the separation of the human and chimpanzee lineages, two ancestral chromosomes, #12 and #13 in the chimpanzee, fused end-to-end to form a single chromosome, #2, in humans. Chimpanzee chromosome 13 forms the short arm (2p) and part of the long arm (2q) of human chromosome 2, while chimpanzee chromosome 12 forms most of the long arm (2q) of chromosome 2.

The primary evidence for this fusion is the comparative genetic content of these chromosomes. That is, most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 13 are found in human 2p, and most of the genes in chimpanzee chromosome 12 are in human 2q. The chromatin binding patterns line up, the sequence analysis confirms, and there have been some lovely FISH studies that show the correspondence.

What has since been done is that a prediction was made that there ought to be fragments of telomeres (the end caps of chromosomes) in the middle of chromosome 2, at the fusion site. Which has been examined. And the prediction has been confirmed.

Bergman and Tomkins ignore every single bit of that. Instead, what they do is focus on just the region of the fusion, and complain that it is a tangled mess (sound familiar?) and hard to interpret " that it is a degenerate telomeric region, rather than a complete and intact telomere, which is what they demand be present. This is an unrealistic expectation, given that every paper on the structure of the fusion region makes the point that it is degenerate.

An analogy: imagine a red Ford Mustang and a blue BMW X6 are in a head-on collision, and both have totally wrecked front ends, with bumpers and radiators and headlights interlocked and everything about their grilles in tangled confusion, and with bits and pieces torn loose and flung about. Youd be able to look at the crash and still tell by everything in and behind the engine compartment that Car #1 was a Mustang and Car #2 was an X6.

Bergman and Tomkins are the bewildered and incompetent investigators who ignore every other factor in the crash, look at a few particularly mangled bits of the wreckage, and declare that they cant identify it, thereforethe two vehicles were assembled at the factory in this particular configuration, and no crash occurred. But they use lots of sciencey language to explain this at tendentious length, which is sufficient to convince non-scientists that the interpretation of an obvious historical event has been refuted. And thats all they need to do to accomplish their goals: fling about unfounded fear, uncertainty, and doubt to win over the ignorant.

This does nothing to establish anything you provide as being empirical and irrefuteable data.

The prediction of the centromere has not been confirmed at all. You have simply repeated the biased conundrums of an assumption.

Talking about cars does nothing to advance and discussion.

the bulk of the centromeric repetitive DNA has been lost.

How is this explained? By assumptive convolutions that suit.

This is the truth and there is nothing you can say or do to change it..

Thus, statements of sequence homology are not generated from individual
comparative outgroup character analysis as they are in morphological analyses. Rather, the claim of sequence homology is the result of an overall best fit between an artificially reconstructed sequence and subsequent measures of phenetic similarity

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_2141.pdf

You cannot challenge this because this is actually what happens.

From your link:
Main conclusions Humans and orangutans share a common ancestor that excludes the extant African apes.

Clownboat, the research into orangs demonstrates that the same fossils can be used to support ancestry to a chimp and orangutan a knucklewalker and a non knucklewalker. It is nowhere near as clear as what evolutionists try to make out. Algorithmic magic is extremely assumptive on both our sides as well.

DNA like wise can be interpreted different ways depending on your assumptions.

This is an evolutionary researchers words...Page 9 & 10.

1. Cladistic analysis. Morphological data are not immune to
the possibility of homoplasy, but neither are molecular data.

2. Insufficient outgroup sampling.

3. Exclusion of the orangutan.

4. Molecular inconsistency.

In addition, in order to compare supposedly homologous DNA sequences one must align sequences of different lengths, which is a procedure that requires assumptions about deletions or additions that underlie the observed disparity in nucleotide sequence order and length. In the end, there is no objective way to assess the relative phylogenetic value for the number of gaps and substitutions that are assumed in order to align sequences of different lengths (Marks, 2003).

Clearly, in the latter two examples, molecular systematists use morphology when it is useful to their objectives " which means that they are selectively using morphological data when it serves a purpose. We take the position that a rejection of a human"orangutan sister relationship on the basis of biased uses and interpretations of molecular data is arbitrary and inconsistent with a truly scientific hypothetico-deductive approach to phylogenetic reconstruction.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/pdf/jbi_2141.pdf

Of all the creation some organism is bound to be more similar to mankind than another both morphologically and genetically. This happens to be great apes, with chimps or orangs being the closest.

Of course all these researchers still support evolution. What I am pointing out is that what you call strong supports for anything are not strong supports at all.

Posters have gone on about homology. Homology means nothing when DNA contradicts morphology because morphology is all you have in the fossil record. This is the case in many taxa.

I have already demonstrated that suits of traits are pick a box flavours of the month. eg mankind is a primate that is an obligate biped, has sophisticated language that can relate to abstract thought in such a way as to make meaning of the world, does not have a fur coat. It is easy to separate mankind away from other apes if one wants to. Evos do not want to, obviously.

If I thought your supports for evolution had merit I would be a theistic evolutionist.

I am a creationist because if creation was true and the Creator used the same best designs, both genetic and morphological, in various organisms one would find them popping up in all organisms, including those that are obviously not closely related. That is exactly what you find.

Evolutionists call this convergent evolution and homoplasy. The differences are called deletions of huge genomic regions, minor deletions, insertions, recombinations, relocations, Robertsons translocations, duplications, de novo genes, accelerated genomic regions, telomere shortening, etc etc etc etc. I call it evidence of a designer that used similar designs to create very different organisms, just like any artist does in their creations.

Just like any other artist one can see the same signature in all their creations. We see this in that all life is made of a handfull of enzymes, elements and electrical charge. Just like any artist one sees the signature in each work of art but the picture is radically different. Non human ape and man is an example. Ape and man have an 80% difference in protein expression, Human telomeres, with the exception of those in human sperm, are much shorter than telomeres in non-human primates. There is at least a 30% unpredicted difference in the chimp/human Y chromosome. The chimp genome is 10% larger than mankind, the surface structure of the genomes are different, and clearly in life a child can pick a man out from a bunch of apes.


The day I read that evolutionary researchers purport with their algorithmic magic that a man is closer to a chimp than a chimp is to any other ape is the day evolution lost me as a supporter, because that beggs belief and is ridiculous in my view. That is over the top of any common sense and intelligence and I therefore no longer support anything these evolutionary researchers have to say about genomics or deep ancestry.

As I have said, a child can pick a human out of a bunch of any other apes. However evolutionists have dehumanized mankind to the extent that they are unable to tell the differences any more.

How can you 'know' evolution is 'right' when there is obviously so much wrong with your theory demonstrated by instability and change?

[Neandertal Ned]

The more books you read about your being an ape the more likely you are to think you are!

Biologically all of these terms apply to humans: Life, Animal, Vertebrate, Mammal, Primate, Ape. Do you only find the term Ape objectionable or do you find it offensive when we refer to ourselves with any of these other biologically correct terms?

You can refer to yourself anyway you like but it is an offense against God to categorize the ancestors and descendents of Shem as apes or animals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shem