Irrefutable proof of Evolution.

You have a theory concerning the Y-Chromosome, but you have no substantive evidence... ie... no real specimen whereby the theory can be validated. Where is that missing link that would act as the substantive proof of your theory?

 

Evolution is very complex, but we observe today, and we generally know how it works. And yes, scientists are usually the people doing that sort of stuff. We can also see what evolution has done in the past. The only problem is that we cannot perfectly predict future evolution very well.

Think of this as a football game. We can see how past football games went. We can see football games being played out right now. We know who the teams are, and we know how football generally works. However, football is so complex that we cannot predict exactly how a game will go. We cannot predict the exact score a team will make, or the exact movements of the game.

In order for your example to work you need to show that it is testable and that there is no good reason we would not see monkeymen appearing today if creationism is false.

Remember that evolution is a very slow process. Over short periods of time, we will not see much evolution, but large periods will see larger evolution. So you are not going to see a drastically new species pop out in 50 years, although you might see a species diverge slightly into different species or see a new structure that is created in a species. In order to see really major evolution, you have to look in the fossil record or wait around a few million years.


The reason that scientists cannot make monkeymen in the labs is because we don't actually have homo erectus, homo habilis or autralopithecus DNA, and we are still not very good at genetic engineering. We also don't do this because we don't want to. I am not sure such a thing is even legal or would even be approved.

As I said before, we have found humans who were born with tails so maybe that sort of satisfies your requirement. We have also found ape-men in the fossil record contrary to your assumption of distinct human and ape kinds.

I am not completely convinced in abiogenesis although there is some pretty reasonable hypotheses. My belief in abiogenesis is not based on faith and neither is my belief in evolution.

 

At the emphasized text above... : Further evidence that the scientific community is only utilizing a 'theory' regarding evolution. Without the presence of that missing DNA, then you have nothing that is valid with regard to binding man with apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, etc. except your fascination with this imaginary thing that Darwin conjured from the depths of his mind.

 

Thanks for admitting that your belief is based on faith. If you don't want to mention your reasons for believing that is all right, this forum is not about that anyway. But if you use these as reasons to not believe in evolution, then they do become important to this discussion.

Evolution actually is not faith-based but is a scientific theory.

faith   /feɪθ/ Show Spelled[feyth] Show IPA
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.

Theory: A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. Unfortunately, even some scientists often use the term "theory" in a more colloquial sense, when they really mean to say "hypothesis." That makes its true meaning in science even more confusing to the general public.

 

Are you pitting scientific theory and research against spiritual creation mythos?

Why? Is it either/or?

 

Who says that DNA is the only source of evidence you can use?

 

I am not pitting anything spiritual against anything material. I am simply requiring proof of that missing link (missing DNA) that ties the knot. Do you have samples of that missing DNA?

 

I don't think this piece of evidence irrefutably proves evolution. It only strengthens the theory. Only multiple pieces of evidence can prove evolution.

 

Well, I am using we as in mankind.

 

Well, I am part of mankind, and I have not contributed anything toward that collection. So the question still stands ... have you contributed anything to that collection? Whether or not your answer is yes , makes no difference now, because 'mankind' (in its entirety) has not contributed to that collection. The term "mankind" is ALL INCLUSIVE.

 

Not yet.. but that's like me asking if YOU have proof of the Creation Mythos adapted from Sumer.

 

We are not talking about any Creation. We are talking about evolution and a particular missing DNA. You openly admit above that you don't have a sample of that DNA, therefore, it can be easily concluded that you are following after yet another 'MYTHOS' fabricated by Darwin and later adapted and modified by peers who shared a vested interest in the theory(myth).

 

Lets not get too picky about grammar here. When I say for example "We humans have built many great cities" the obvious interpretation is not that every human being builds cities, but that many humans have built many great cities. I will not discuss grammar any further ... lets get back on topic.

 

You can't extract DNA from fossils 4-8 million years old. The evidence comes from studying skeletal anatomy. Evolution is fact in that generational genetic mutations do occur. Exactly how and why this occurs and how it produces new species is what is theory.

 

And what is the 'topic' composed of?????? GRAMMAR. If you cannot use grammar to convey your ideas in an effective manner, then you might want to abandon all other endeavors until such time as you become proficient in the use of grammar.

"We humans have built many great cities" is an accurate statement. On the other hand, your previous statement "To me evolution is a fact but not because of just one piece of evidence but because of the sum total of evidence that we have collected.", did not differentiate any particular group of people such as archaeologists and paleontologists and therefore included all people, specifically identifying yourself as a part of the 'we'. Thus, the question still stands. What have you contributed to that collection?

 

Take that empty claim up with those who know:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=21&..._gc.r_pw.&fp=da8c3ab7508c4c6a&biw=800&bih=441

 

Well, a better question, why are we talking about Evolution in the religion section at all?

If, as atheists say (and I agree with them on this), it is bad to shove religion into a science classroom, it is easily as wrong to shove science into religion. It is wrong to shove social studies or gym class into science as well. Evolution, in case you missed it, is not something that is at odds with religion - not at all - a conclusion that Darwin himself arrives at hundreds of years ago when he releases the theory.

So, why the insistance of bringing science into religion, where, quite frankly, religion dealing with such subjects as feelings, emotions, wisdom, rather than data points and objective data, is ill suited?

Again, this flows from the atheist thrashing of the first chapter of the Bible. And, once again, I suggest that atheists take a good hard look at what Genisis actually states.

Now, lets again remember that this creation narrative is thousands of years old and the result of revelation in a time when our modern concept of time and understanding of the universe are simple, and unequivacably, not there.

Does this refer to the Big Bang? Or to the start of the fusion process in our Sun?

So, the earth is forming. Tracking.

OK, so we have the seas and teh land before we have the fauna that comes from them.

So the universe is there to mark the passage of time for teh fauna that grows on Earth, which, is now tilted on its axis.

OK, so we have life. Odd.

Wow, higher level animald 'evolve' because this is pleasing to God. The last of which, and the only life form to worship God are humans. Go figure huh?

Yep.

Now, the message of that process is that all of 'this' is created as the result of God. There is nothing in there that states, this is how God did it! Here is teh exact timeline God did it in! Etc.

It is creation story from thousands of years ago, when people had a tough time imagining a time span of greater than a thousand years. And yet, we understand this, and we understand evolution, but for some reason, we need to have our religion (which is based on a heck of a lot more than the first couple pages of the Bible) bashed with evolution?

The Creation narative in the Bible is not at odds with evolution. It is the result of primitive mand attempting to struggle with the reality of creation, and concluding that we are here as a result of God's wishes and desires.

Now, would you care to demonstrate how the evolving understanding of the universe eliminates God from the process? How it lessons the message of Jesus?

Evolution explains biology, not religion. If you are studying biology to understand religion .... you have fundamentally missed the boat.

 

Lets debate whether evolution has evidence and not the presice ways in which the word "we" can be used. I have clarified what I meant, so now lets move on.

 

This is the games this poster likes to play. He knows he cannot debate Evolution, so he resorts to word games to derail a thread.

Ignore lists are good places for trolls who practice this type of nonsense.

 

Well, THAT was relevant to the debate about evolution

No trolling there.

Its pretty simple atheists, you are missing the boat.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails. And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."

Ummhmmm .... so how does evolution relate to that?

See a lot of faith, hope, and love in biology books? Why do atheists continuously drag evolution into religion? Better question, why are the SAME atheists posters who continuously drag evolution doing so while repeatedly daming OTHERS as trolls?

Missing the boat.

 

No, the Christians life is based on faith. My belief is not based on faith. Entrance into this life is by faith.

Theory, assumption, faith. Your evolution is a faith. Not a fact. Its a belief. Some say even a 'religion'.

You can take those terms surronding evolution and redefine them to make them sound like somethng other than assumption and faith. But it is still faith.

Quantrill

 

but you have not answered the question. What contributions have you made to that collection?

 

lol Yeah OK that was an over simplification, and I was talking about human fossils. It is extremely unlikely that we will ever find well-preserved DNA 4-8 million years back in the human fossil record. So people who are waiting for that evidence are gonna be waiting a long LONG time. There you go!

 

Agh, so, the theory postulates that it should be there, and there are indeed techniques to recover DNA from fossils.

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html

There you are, 17-20 million year old DNA. Which, mind you, I discovered in less than a minute. For you however, it was simply too hard to find, and we would need to wait a LONG TIME for it - nevertheless, even without that bit of evidence, evolution as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY remained basically established fact. Correct?

Now, apply that train of thought, YOUR train of thought to the continual atheist demand for evidence of God. There are things that God does claim, like miracles and answered prayers, etc., but these are not conclusive. And yet, like your millions of year old DNA, there are other, revealing insights to God that do not pop up on command - just like those searching for DNA that was millions of years old had to get off their lazy butts and go find:

A. Where it was likely to be.

B. Go to those places.

C. Search until they found what was there, no doubt with many dry holes in the process.

Yet God demands a greater weight of evidence than does evolution does it? Interesting theory atheists - and one more reason I would caution you against dragging evolution into religion.

You are missing the boat.

 

Yep! "There you go". What you have stated is the equivalent of an admission that such evidence will never be found, thus proving that evolution is now and will forever be nothing more than a 'theory'. Not worthy of anything other than fairy tale material.