How Can Evolution Be A Fact?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

It's like trying to pick up a dead frog with a piece of wet cardboard. I mean damn! I had to go and teach you about groups and subgroups, how all members of one group qualify to be placed in another group, but how all members of that second group aren't necessarily qualified to be in the first-- I learned that stuff before 6th grade! But at least there are others who will learn something, so it's not a total loss.

 

Okay Dhampir. What do you think of the myelin in the bonobos brain in contrast to the human brain, also do you think this has something to do with the bonobos experiments regarding there environmental surroundings?

[Dhampir]

 

Okay, you are right. Ape sub for primate in my post on the first page somewhere before the original 'pointing' of the error, also further up on that page from the post that I said,...Sorry, ape instead of primate!!!!!! Get over it man. Make a point or something. You have yet to make a point related to the discussion.

 

I did make a point. My point was that you're here of all places plying us with one nitpicked issue of incredible specificity, and using that to make a point about the falsehood that is evolution, when in reality, there are plenty of forums FILLED with people perfectly suited to properly and unarguably answer your question. In answer to your less specific, albeit not directly asked in this thread (that I know of) question, we don't have all the answers, and many things with regard to the specifics of evolution is speculation, but not merit-less speculation-- it is speculation based on the full scrutiny of ALL the available evidence, which points to the what, almost indisputably, but not always the HOW.

 

That Evolution happens is a FACT. That we have DIRECTLY observed it is a FACT. The only issues we haven't sorted out yet are explanations for the exact mechanisms by which it comes about. We might not have solid concrete answers for every issue, but that's what science does-- it finds answers, it doesn't start with the answers then work back to the question. Your Bonobo question might have an answer

 

*YOU FUCKING NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY'RE BETTER EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!*

 

But even if there isn't an answer devoid of speculation, or of a certain level thereof, that by itself does not render invalid the claim that evolution is fact. If we couldn't reliably work this way, then every murder case that didn't have at least 2 eyewitnesses would have to be thrown out.

 

I dare you to go to Youtube and ask this same question to a guy by the name of DonExodus2. He's an evolutionary biologist. And guess what? Heeeeeeeeeeee's a christian too!! He'll probably dedicate an entire video to answering your question in a way even you can't (falsely) dumb your way around. I also challenge you to ask him your real core question: How is it that if Evolution doesn't have conclusive answers for everything in it's purview (and disagrees with my interpretation of the bible), can it be considered a fact?

[Abiyoyo]

I would suggest trying to make us sound stupid, or blindly devoted to our "precious" evolution).

 

 

 

Okay. I am reading a book on the significance of the hands in evolution, and also how the hands are directly corresponding to the brain and it's functions. How much the brain is suggested to have grown up to Lucy, and how the lingering holes of the absence regards to how the hand became more eloquent with the modern human. This is yet a mystery to evolutionists, as far a putting theory of the development of the hand, around current Paleoanthropology.

 

I am also reading basic information on the frontal lobe of the brain, the myelin, and psychological factors involved with the neurological factoring of the hands, language, movement, speech, etc.

 

I admitted the question of, Is it possible that the myelin growth within the human brain as well as the frontal lobe enlargement plausible as the distinguishing factorial difference of why we are humans.

 

As far as the title of the OP. The overall of the M1 sector of the brain just basically came to be without any evolutionary explanation. this sector is responsible for those eloquent hand movements, also the myelin substance around the frontal lobes are responsible for the eloquent attribute of the hands.

 

Maybe you should read up on the subject.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

*YOU FUCKING NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY'RE BETTER EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!*

 

 

 

First you tell me that I am stupid and need my 6th grade education elevated, now you tell me that people here are not 'equipped' to answer this type of question?

[Guest Davka]

<<<snip Davka regurgitations>>>>>

 

Evolution of apes into humans is theory.

 

Nope.

 

Evolution of apes and humans from a common ancestor is part of evolutionary theory. And you not only DO NOT KNOW what the word "theory" means when used in science, you evidently do not care.

 

 

Because as long as you remain ignorant of the true meaning of the word "theory," you can go on pretending that evolution is just some unproven, unprovable pipe dream.

 

 

If you cared about learning, you would say "what do you mean by 'theory' then?"

 

This is what I mean.

 

You, like everyone else who uses the phrase "evolution is just a theory" to try to discount it, are trying to use the non-scientific meaning of the word as if it were interchangeable with the scientific meaning. It is not.

 

Read the article. Carefully. Please.

[hereticzero]

But, they are educated guesses at best.

you finally said it. educated 'guesses' beat faith based creationism anytime.

[Abiyoyo]

But, they are educated guesses at best.

you finally said it. educated 'guesses' beat faith based creationism anytime.

 

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.-Charles Darwin

[scitsofreaky]

 

 

*YOU FUCKING NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY'RE BETTER EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!*

 

 

 

First you tell me that I am stupid and need my 6th grade education elevated, now you tell me that people here are not 'equipped' to answer this type of question?

Just because we are not equipped to answer a very technical and specific question doesn't mean you aren't stupid. As far as I am concerned, this thread is a waste of time because no one is learning anything. The differences in myelin or M¹ division between Homo and Pans (or any other living species for that matter) doesn't matter because we did not evolve from them. Yes, the similarities and differences can be/are interesting, but the Theory of Evolution does not hang in the balance.

[Shyone]

I would suggest trying to make us sound stupid, or blindly devoted to our "precious" evolution).

 

 

 

Okay. I am reading a book on the significance of the hands in evolution, and also how the hands are directly corresponding to the brain and it's functions. How much the brain is suggested to have grown up to Lucy, and how the lingering holes of the absence regards to how the hand became more eloquent with the modern human. This is yet a mystery to evolutionists, as far a putting theory of the development of the hand, around current Paleoanthropology.

 

I am also reading basic information on the frontal lobe of the brain, the myelin, and psychological factors involved with the neurological factoring of the hands, language, movement, speech, etc.

 

I admitted the question of, Is it possible that the myelin growth within the human brain as well as the frontal lobe enlargement plausible as the distinguishing factorial difference of why we are humans.

 

As far as the title of the OP. The overall of the M1 sector of the brain just basically came to be without any evolutionary explanation. this sector is responsible for those eloquent hand movements, also the myelin substance around the frontal lobes are responsible for the eloquent attribute of the hands.

 

Maybe you should read up on the subject.

I don't get it. What are you trying to say? That we are different from other primates, or that other primates are different from us?

 

Are you then suggesting that the mutation(s) that make us different are God induced instead of like the mutations that make bonobos different from orangutans? or snakes from lizards?

 

Shit happens, and when the mutation fits, the species either benefits or not; the recipient either lives, survives and reproduces, or not.

 

So?

 

Hands are very interesting. They are evolutionarily related to wings, feet, and appendages on whales and dolphins. Aren't we lucky to have opposable thumbs!

 

And, as others have suggested, your focus on evolutionary minutiae is reductionism at its worst. You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Perhaps I should ask a more basic question. Do you see the non-human primates in our evolutionary line as our ancestors?

 

And do you understand that the remarkable similarities between some species (and particularly primates) are genetically based and the result of common ancestry?

 

If these questions stump you, then all of the time you spend on specific differences in myelin or cerebral architecture will not be of any use to you or anyone else.

 

If your search is to see who we are, why we have consciousness, why we are self aware, and what distinguishes us from other conscious self-aware species, then that is an honest line of research. People who look for stuff that "can't be explained" solely to say it can't be explained (and is therefore unexplainable - so goddidit) are simply being dishonest with others and themselves.

[Shyone]

 

The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain: and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.-Charles Darwin

How dishonest of you.

 

This is used to claim that Darwin doubted his own theory, and that he considered it invalid, or at best just an idea. However, reading the very next sentence shows this to be a deliberate mischaracterization:

 

Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.

Darwin then continues to explain why the fossil record did not, at least at his time, plainly show transitionals.

[Dhampir]

*YOU FUCKING NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE WHERE THEY'RE BETTER EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION!!*

 

 

 

First you tell me that I am stupid and need my 6th grade education elevated, now you tell me that people here are not 'equipped' to answer this type of question?

 

We've been over this before too. I never once called you stupid. I'm calling a lot of what you're saying stupid, and I'm accusing you, being that you have proven yourself far more intelligent than this, of feigning stupidity, for the purpose lowering the value of this one subject, which YOU know very little about, and yet are convinced is a lie of some sort, all the while insulting OUR intelligence by expecting that we believe you to be that stupid.

 

What you're asking is a very technical question, one which I and probably most others here are not able to, nor should be expected to be able to answer very well, when there are plenty of forums (because forums seem to be your niche) where you'd find a much better and complete answer. I swear, you seem to expect us to tearfully renounce evolution on the strength of our inability to service this request. It's like an argument from someone else's ignorance. My continued accusation of intellectual dishonesty comes from that fact, that you haven't gone elsewhere to be better serviced. You DON'T want a real answer, you just want us to feel bad about our convictions because of something we aren't all that experienced with. Not only that, but you want to twist our answers such that they either support you or undermine ourselves. I know you want to do this because very few of us are credentialed biologists, evolutionary biologists, or scholars otherwise qualified to address this question, the types of people you can't do that with.

[ContraBardus]

Just a note as I provided several videos in the 'quadroped' thread, but seems worth mentioning here as well.

 

Check out this thread 'Made Easy' Video Series. It's the 'complete answer' you're looking for. It explains all this, even bringing up some of the points already made here, with imagery and evidence to back it up. It explains in detail why you are wrong, shows evidence why you are wrong, and provides references and images to illustrate that you are wrong.

 

It explains in detail without getting too complicated points out exactly how and why you're in error, how you are misrepresenting the facts, and are either misinformed, or pretending to be dumber than you really are to promote an agenda.

 

It also goes into detail about how and why Evolution is considered a fact, and why Intelligent Design is not.

[Abiyoyo]

I swear, you seem to expect us to tearfully renounce evolution on the strength of our inability to service this request.

 

People expect me to tearfully renounce God because I can't make Him come down and do magic tricks.

[Guest Davka]

OK, Abiyoyo, I chased down and revised an old post of mine just for you. I'm going to keep a copy of it, along with a link to the original, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.

 

Here is my brief explanation of Theory and the Scientific Method.

 

Please read it so we can continue this conversation from a place of better mutual understanding.

[Abiyoyo]

OK, Abiyoyo, I chased down and revised an old post of mine just for you. I'm going to keep a copy of it, along with a link to the original, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.

 

Here is my brief explanation of Theory and the Scientific Method.

 

Please read it so we can continue this conversation from a place of better mutual understanding.

 

Okay, but I didn't mean theory in the scientific sense when I made that statement. Should I have chose another word? I meant it as an abstract thought, or speculation. Maybe speculation should have been used.

 

New statement. "The evolution of [the common ancestor] of apes into [modern day] humans is speculation (or I could use, educated guess, as prior).

 

Better?

 

I added the common ancestor thing to because it seems people are having a hard time implying comprehension into reading.

[Guest Davka]

OK, Abiyoyo, I chased down and revised an old post of mine just for you. I'm going to keep a copy of it, along with a link to the original, so I won't have to keep repeating myself.

 

Here is my brief explanation of Theory and the Scientific Method.

 

Please read it so we can continue this conversation from a place of better mutual understanding.

 

Okay, but I didn't mean theory in the scientific sense when I made that statement. Should I have chose another word? I meant it as an abstract thought, or speculation. Maybe speculation should have been used.

 

New statement. "The evolution of [the common ancestor] of apes into [modern day] humans is speculation (or I could use, educated guess, as prior).

 

Better?

 

Yes, it's better.

 

It's also wrong.

 

Evolutionary Theory is a scientific theory. It is based on a number of hypotheses which have been used to create predictive models. These predictive models have been tested and re-tested for 150 years, and they have proven their ability to accurately predict:

 

- What we will find in the fossil record;

- The behavior of micro-organisms over many generations;

- What we will find in the DNA of various organisms;

- Cell structure in all life forms;

- Bone and muscle structure in related animal life;

- Vestigal structures such as tailbones in humans and finger bones in whales;

- Viral behavior . . .

 

. . . and much, much more. This single predictive model fits every single area of the biological sciences perfectly. It has accurately predicted dozens of discoveries in every single field of what is sometimes called "life science." It is not merely an educated guess, any more than it is an "educated guess" to say that an object in motion will stay in motion until acted on by an outside force.

 

So although I understand that you believe evolution to be no more than an untested idea, it is, in fact, much more than that. It is an idea that has beeen tested, and re-tested, and re-re-tested. And it just keeps passing tests. 150 years' worth of tests.

 

That's not speculation. It's a pretty damned good model, and until you can come up with a better, similarly testable model, I suggest you treat the Theory with the respect that it deserves.

[Abiyoyo]

Just a note as I provided several videos in the 'quadroped' thread, but seems worth mentioning here as well.

 

Check out this thread 'Made Easy' Video Series. It's the 'complete answer' you're looking for. It explains all this, even bringing up some of the points already made here, with imagery and evidence to back it up. It explains in detail why you are wrong, shows evidence why you are wrong, and provides references and images to illustrate that you are wrong.

 

It explains in detail without getting too complicated points out exactly how and why you're in error, how you are misrepresenting the facts, and are either misinformed, or pretending to be dumber than you really are to promote an agenda.

 

It also goes into detail about how and why Evolution is considered a fact, and why Intelligent Design is not.

 

I never said evolution is wrong, I said that I don't believe that the evolution of our common animal ancestor related to apes into the modern human is still speculative, which would make it the opposite of a 'fact'.

 

Your Big Bang video and the other were painstakingly redundant, unnecessary, and quite off topic. I see it as if you said the Flood may not have happened because it doesn't fit the time line of Earth, definitely could not be a fact because of science; but then I posted several apologetic videos about the Flood with a few facts, and common knowledge. Get my point?

 

Your video even says at the end that the why? is still unknown, but science show that 'something' happened in this continual effect. The point of the video was the evidence of the measurements in space related to the basis of the 'speculation' that this Big Bang created our existence. People here once told me that reading to much of the Bible and trying to fit everything together just right or debate about it in different ways was 'mental masturbation'. I see this the same for the Big bang, no better than the great philosophers of the past.

[Guest Davka]

I never said evolution is wrong, I said that I don't believe that the evolution of our common animal ancestor related to apes into the modern human is still speculative, which would make it the opposite of a 'fact'.

 

The problem with this statement is that the Theory of Evolution has accurately predicted a number of human biological traits, as well as explained a number which were a mystery for many centuries. The Theory says "if humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, we should see X, Y, and Z." And that's exactly what we do see.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

The problem with this statement is that the Theory of Evolution has accurately predicted a number of human biological traits, as well as explained a number which were a mystery for many centuries. The Theory says "if humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, we should see X, Y, and Z." And that's exactly what we do see.

 

"The prophecy of the prophets have accurately predicted a number of Bible prophecies as well as explained the mystery of Jesus Christ. The prophecy says that Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith as descendants of the One True God, we should see X,Y,and Z. And that is exactly what we see"

 

I want proof just as people want proof God exists.

[Guest Davka]

 

 

The problem with this statement is that the Theory of Evolution has accurately predicted a number of human biological traits, as well as explained a number which were a mystery for many centuries. The Theory says "if humans and apes are descended from a common ancestor, we should see X, Y, and Z." And that's exactly what we do see.

 

"The prophecy of the prophets have accurately predicted a number of Bible prophecies as well as explained the mystery of Jesus Christ. The prophecy says that Jesus Christ is the author and finisher of our faith as descendants of the One True God, we should see X,Y,and Z. And that is exactly what we see"

 

I want proof just as people want proof God exists.

 

There is plenty of proof. Keep reading books on evolution by scientists who are able to explain the theory well, and you will see the proof.

 

The analogy of Bible prophecy is badly flawed for a number of reasons:

 

- they do not give us a testable predictive model of any kind. I cannot base an experiment on Bible prophecy.

 

- we have no idea when the supposed prophecies were written. Most of them, however, appear to have been written well after the events that they "prophesied."

 

- the prophecies that supposedly point to Jesus seem to have been retro-fitted into the Gospels.

 

There is no predictive model in Bible prophecy. No way to test the idea. That's why it remains pure speculation, rather than scientific theory.

[Shyone]

I never said evolution is wrong, I said that I don't believe that the evolution of our common animal ancestor related to apes into the modern human is still speculative, which would make it the opposite of a 'fact'.

 

First, why would you pick that particular part of evolution? The descent of man and apes is pretty well documented, and the relationships over millions of years are fairly clear.

 

First, you have to get to the primates:

 

 

Then you can track the developlent of different primates:

 

 

Now, exactly where in this tree do you think god stuck his finger? And what about this evolutionary development do you consider speculative and why?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

There is no predictive model in Bible prophecy. No way to test the idea. That's why it remains pure speculation, rather than scientific theory.

 

How can we test the process of evolution in the present? There are sparse transitional fossils. Genetics says that an animal in just a few decades can go from savage beast to tame domesticated, upon carefully breeding and training. Foxes have been experimented on and there are actual tame foxes that are domesticated now.

 

But they are still physically a fox. Evolution defines this process but expounds the notion of a change in appearance, thus one creature branching off into another creature.

 

Is it not possible that the possible that the suggested transitional forms discovered were simply another species that died off?

 

I do not dismiss this suggestion because it is still a present occurrence even today. Now, we can go and visit a dying breed that is near extinct, watch it, analyze it, and even watch that breed die off. This is documented science.

[Guest Davka]

 

 

There is no predictive model in Bible prophecy. No way to test the idea. That's why it remains pure speculation, rather than scientific theory.

 

How can we test the process of evolution in the present?

 

By making predictions about what will be found in nature if the theory is true. Also, by making predictions about how fast-replicating organisms (like fruit flies and viruses) will respond to environmental pressure.

 

There are sparse transitional fossils.

 

All fossils are transitional fossils. All life forms are transitional life forms. And if what you're claiming is that we have few fossils of animals in the in-between stage, such as rodents with the ability to glide that are not quite bats, it is true that there are few of them, but that's what the model predicts. And few is not the same as zero. Transitional fossils exist for tens of thousands of species.

 

Genetics says that an animal in just a few decades can go from savage beast to tame domesticated, upon carefully breeding and training. Foxes have been experimented on and there are actual tame foxes that are domesticated now.

 

this is not evolution, it's training. And it has nothing to do with genetics. You can domesticate a fox or a raccoon, but you cannot domesticate a wolf or a lion.

 

But they are still physically a fox. Evolution defines this process but expounds the notion of a change in appearance, thus one creature branching off into another creature.

 

Again, not in a few generations. In tens of thousands of years. Why do I need to keep repeating this?

 

Is it not possible that the possible transitional forms discovered were simply another species that died off?

Anything is "possible," but the simplest explanation is usually true. We have even been able to "harvest" DNA from fossilized tissue, and the story it tells is exactly what we would expect for a transitional form.

 

One thing you need to understand is that accepting evolution does not mean denying Christianity. Many Christians - probably most Christians - have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. They simply assume that this is how God created all the animals.

 

I disagree, but that's not really the point, is it?

[Abiyoyo]

Anything is "possible," but the simplest explanation is usually true. We have even been able to "harvest" DNA from fossilized tissue, and the story it tells is exactly what we would expect for a transitional form.

 

One thing you need to understand is that accepting evolution does not mean denying Christianity. Many Christians - probably most Christians - have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. They simply assume that this is how God created all the animals.

 

I disagree, but that's not really the point, is it?

 

I know. And, I don't disagree with the process of evolution in a simpler fashion, but the mutation of one creature into another is the fantastical part for me, as fantasy as some of the Bible in the same degree. I see it as wishful thinking.

 

I see evolution more of interbreeding of a variety of animals instead of a gradual mutation over millions of years. I think the different finds at the different dates just says the same thing, an interbreeding of animals in some way with similar genetics that enabled them to have offspring, thus creating a uniquely different breed of sort.

 

I would have to believe that the evolution of humans is false to be a Christian because even Jesus Christ spoke of it when discussing Law of divorce from Moses.

 

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

[Shyone]

Anything is "possible," but the simplest explanation is usually true. We have even been able to "harvest" DNA from fossilized tissue, and the story it tells is exactly what we would expect for a transitional form.

 

One thing you need to understand is that accepting evolution does not mean denying Christianity. Many Christians - probably most Christians - have no problem with the Theory of Evolution. They simply assume that this is how God created all the animals.

 

I disagree, but that's not really the point, is it?

 

I know. And, I don't disagree with the process of evolution in a simpler fashion, but the mutation of one creature into another is the fantastical part for me, as fantasy as some of the Bible in the same degree. I see it as wishful thinking.

 

I see evolution more of interbreeding of a variety of animals instead of a gradual mutation over millions of years. I think the different finds at the different dates just says the same thing, an interbreeding of animals in some way with similar genetics that enabled them to have offspring, thus creating a uniquely different breed of sort.

 

I would have to believe that the evolution of humans is false to be a Christian because even Jesus Christ spoke of it when discussing Law of divorce from Moses.

 

5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus believed the entire old testament, just like all of the primitive people of his age that were observant Jews.

 

He even believed in the story of Jonah. Sorry if you are disappointed, but Jesus was as duped as you, er, modern day Christians are.

 

ASV Matthew 12:39-40

39. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of Jonah the prophet:

40. for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

 

That's the problem with the Bible. It was written before many scientific discoveries, and it reveals none of them. It accepts the literal truth of what should be metaphor or myth, and it reveals nothing that a primitive person would not have known.

 

What of microbes? Radiation therapy, medications for epilepsy, and on and on.

 

The bible is silent regarding the real future, and so is Jesus. It should not surprise you, then that Jesus was ignorant of evolution.