Theory of Evolution and Mormons

[littlechild]

I think it is so funny that creationists still talk about William Dembski. His book has been thoroughly refuted, by so many people that it is a yawn to bring it up anymore. The fact that no one with a degree has written a book similar to his (and his book was written several years ago) is a good indication that Intelligent design is pretty much blowing over (in the academic field).

But, I will give you a chance. Can you give me one peer reviewed study that shows evidence for intelligent design on it's own, that is, without mentioning problems with evolution? It seems to me that creationists are set on the idea that if Darwinism is wrong, intelligent design wins by default. This certainly is not scientific.

"I didn't get a degree. I am a college senior as of about 1985. As if it matters in this discourse. If the knowledge explosion leads us to double our knowledge every couple years such a degree would be dated anyway."

Even Darwin himself could topple over your arguments. hell, I have been reading your posts, and I still don't see a refutation of natural selection. I'm not even confident that you understand the theory as it is laid out anyways. This is why I asked about your background.

One more question if you don't mind. Who taught you evolutionary theory? Can you even describe the theory as science does?

If you can, then I agree, education is not relevant. But if you couldn't when writing your above posts, then it's silly for you to weigh in on a scientific theory you don't understand. It would be like me saying that since I don't understand the theory of gravity, then intelligent falling must be correct.

No, you asked about my background because you have an irrational belief. You believe that you can discredit the messenger and that thereby your argument wins. That is irrational from the get-go.

And what is the nature of this discredit? Where does it arise that a person must take the same course you have taken in order to have any valid refutation of the subject matter?

This is irrational, and you are at my throat over something that if your intellect is so vastly superior to, could be dealt with a greater level of sophistication than you have exemplified. I will resist the temptation to return the personal comments. ID is more valid than evolutionary algorithms, in my opinion. You may responsibly choose to form your opinion, that is your business.

[littlechild]

littlechild, you would probably really like this video. I especially recommend the part about "accidents and blind luck" at 4:40.

If you have a whole ten minutes to spare, you might really enjoy this video as well. It really speaks to the issue you raise about complexity in the universe.

No, that's really not true. And be careful not to conflate "the variation of life" with "the origin of life". Evolution speaks to one, but not the other.

CFR that Intelligent Design is "science".

CFR for this claim as well.

This is a much more practical explanation of science:

That's an interesting idea. Can you explain any "new insights" that are scientifically verified by Intelligent Design? Please describe the scientific method that was used to verify these "new insights".

For example, here is a good list of 29+ scientific variations for macroevolution. 29+ Evidences For Common Descent. Each of these is explained as a scientific verification, including the critical potential falsification for each of them. They actually explain what scientists would find instead if evolution weren't a valid theory, or what data could come forth that would falsify that experiment.

Can you provide anything similar for Intelligent Design? What claims has it made that can be tested and falsified?

cinepro, thank you for engaging the topic. I would like to take a look at your offerings and respond to them. Perhaps I will be able to do this by tomorrow morning.

Incidentally Dembski doesn't reject the notion of common descent based on NFL theorems. But I do. Behe doesn't reject common descent either. But as neither one of them can prove it, and I don't see how anyone could at this point, I still reject it.

[macmini]

cinepro, thank you for engaging the topic. I would like to take a look at your offerings and respond to them. Perhaps I will be able to do this by tomorrow morning.

Incidentally Dembski doesn't reject the notion of common descent based on NFL theorems. But I do. Behe doesn't reject common descent either. But as neither one of them can prove it, and I don't see how anyone could at this point, I still reject it.

BROTHER I HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT. It has come to me as the batopig. One half pig one half bat. I thought I was confused when I could not find a crocoduck and it seemed like the fatal blow to evolution. But I can continue in my ideology since just recently we have found PROOF of evolution. I WIN you LOSE. I present.....for all to see....THE BATOPIG.

[littlechild]

I think it is so funny that creationists still talk about William Dembski. His book has been thoroughly refuted, by so many people that it is a yawn to bring it up anymore. The fact that no one with a degree has written a book similar to his (and his book was written several years ago) is a good indication that Intelligent design is pretty much blowing over (in the academic field). Sure, you get the people without degrees, or even an understanding of the theory (natural selection is the mechanism, evolution is the result, so it's natural selection that would "fail" to explain the existence of complexity... but of course it doesn't fail at all) lashing out on message boards, but the debate is gone in the scientific field.

One more question if you don't mind. Who taught you evolutionary theory? Can you even describe the theory as science does?

If you can, then I agree, education is not relevant. But if you couldn't when writing your above posts, then it's silly for you to weigh in on a scientific theory you don't understand. It would be like me saying that since I don't understand the theory of gravity, then intelligent falling must be correct.

I think its funny that you claim Dembski has been refuted , without reading his book. You don't understand his message, you don't even know what it is.

You don't even understand what I mean by speciation. It isn't creating non-novel subspecies or variations, which is all you've demonstrated. Show me a reptile becoming a mammal, without violating the laws of physics and mathematics.

As far as I'm concerned - until you do, you're just another alchemist. You believe you can turn lead into gold, reptiles into mammals, fish into humans, ad nauseum. no one has ever demonstrated that they can do it in a lab, or that it happened by natural causes.

[Eldwynn]

No, you asked about my background because you have an irrational belief. You believe that you can discredit the messenger and that thereby your argument wins. That is irrational from the get-go.

And what is the nature of this discredit? Where does it arise that a person must take the same course you have taken in order to have any valid refutation of the subject matter?

This is irrational, and you are at my throat over something that if your intellect is so vastly superior to, could be dealt with a greater level of sophistication than you have exemplified. I will resist the temptation to return the personal comments. ID is more valid than evolutionary algorithms, in my opinion. You may responsibly choose to form your opinion, that is your business.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

I will tell you (again) why I asked about your background. I KNOW that ones educational background does not disqualify one from a subject. I have no educational background in the study of scripture, egyptian, law, political science, etc. But I do engage in conversation.

However, if I were to think quantum mechanics is a bogus theory that can not accurately describe our world, and I was talking to a physicist about it, I don't think it's unreasonable that the physicist ask "well how much background do you have in the theory?".

At this point, I have two answers.

A) None whatsoever from a formal standpoint. However, I have read a lot of literature about quantum mechanics, and have a pretty good understanding of the theory. I understand the claims, and have taken great care to learn the arguments before I discount them. I have a basic grasp of writings from Physicists like Stephen Hawkings etc.

OR

I have no educational background in physics. Furthermore, I have never read anything by supporters of the theory. I don't even understand the theory of relativity. I doubt the theory because of a book I read written by a big critic of Quantum mechanics, and that is it.

Which one are you doing?

Certainly, one is allowed to form his own opinion. However, don't expect me to explain everything to you about a subject as detailed as the theory of evolution, when you haven't even read The Origin of Species. Dawkins has wrote several books explaining the theory in incredible detail, and with quite a bit of supporting evidence. You are more than welcome to read them. From your point of view, it would also make you a bit more credible and convincing in the argument, if you didn't run around claiming evolution claims things that it did not.

[Eldwynn]

I think its funny that you claim Dembski has been refuted , without reading his book. You don't understand his message, you don't even know what it is.

You don't even understand what I mean by speciation. It isn't creating non-novel subspecies or variations, which is all you've demonstrated. Show me a reptile becoming a mammal, without violating the laws of physics and mathematics.

As far as I'm concerned - until you do, you're just another alchemist. You believe you can turn lead into gold, reptiles into mammals, fish into humans, ad nauseum. no one has ever demonstrated that they can do it in a lab, or that it happened by natural causes.

Actually, I have read Dembskis book. I understand his argument, and he is DEAD WRONG from the get go. He paints evolutionary theory as a theory of chance. It is NOT a theory of any sort of chance whatsoever. The fact that he is dead wrong about such an important part of understanding the theory, sets the rest of his book up for failure.

Again, you misunderstand evolution in your entire post. NO ONE is claiming that modern day fish evolved into modern day humans. NO ONE is claiming that reptiles can turn into mammals. Again, when you lack a basic understanding of the theory, it is really hard to get anywhere.

Evolution claims that the transitions you think we should be able to observe in lab, took thousands of millions of years. What do you expect? Biologists, without intervening, would be able to witness a fish turn into a monkey? This would actually destroy evolutionary theory if such an observation where to occur.

However, science could take the gene of a mouse, and modify it to become the gene of just about any mammal, without making all that many changes. Changes that could happen in the next several million years or so, were selection pressures to drive it.

By the way, science is on the verge, if not already able to, do everything you talked on about in your last paragraph (turning lead into gold etc.)

[Billy]

He paints evolutionary theory as a theory of chance. It is NOT a theory of any sort of chance whatsoever. The fact that he is dead wrong about such an important part of understanding the theory, sets the rest of his book up for failure.

It is natural selection of the fittest, genetic drift and sexual selection.

NO ONE is claiming that reptiles can turn into mammals.

So you are not claiming that mammals came from a precursor of the modern day reptiles?

Evolution claims that the transitions you think we should be able to observe in lab, took thousands of millions of years.

You are taking something that is provable such as speciation within "kinds" and then backward projecting the information in a grander scale. Nobody disagrees with the fact the bacteria can develop into new species. I have no doubt that there are "kinds" than differentiate into different species within the same "kind" such as wolves and dogs. Some would call this micro-evolution but others may call this macro-evolution. What ever name you call it, it is based in science. But when you extrapolate this back to say that an ancient reptile evolved into a mammal etc. then this is more theory than fact. I know that there is circumstantial evidence for this idea, but it is circumstantial at best.

BTW the replication time for bacteria is about 20 minutes. Any evidence that a bacteria has evolved into anything other than a bacteria?

[Tsuzuki]

By the way, science is on the verge, if not already able to, do everything you talked on about in your last paragraph (turning lead into gold etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg

"In 1980, he (Glenn Seaborg) transmuted several thousand atoms of bismuth into gold at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. His experimental technique, using nuclear physics, was able to remove protons and neutrons from the bismuth atoms. Seaborg's technique would have been far too expensive to enable routine manufacturing of gold, but his work is the closest to the mythical Philosopher's Stone."

[Eldwynn]

It is natural selection of the fittest, genetic drift and sexual selection.

So you are not claiming that mammals came from a precursor of the modern day reptiles?

You are taking something that is provable such as speciation within "kinds" and then backward projecting the information in a grander scale. Nobody disagrees with the fact the bacteria can develop into new species. I have no doubt that there are "kinds" than differentiate into different species within the same "kind" such as wolves and dogs. Some would call this micro-evolution but others may call this macro-evolution. What ever name you call it, it is based in science. But when you extrapolate this back to say that an ancient reptile evolved into a mammal etc. then this is more theory than fact. I know that there is circumstantial evidence for this idea, but it is circumstantial at best.

BTW the replication time for bacteria is about 20 minutes. Any evidence that a bacteria has evolved into anything other than a bacteria?

My initial instinct was to tell you to read the past few pages, where we have linked over and over again evidence of common descent. It's really odd to me, the way you differentiate the fact/theory paradigm. Common ancestry is a historical fact. The evidence is sitting right there in our DNA. The same way you could prove your cousin is your cousin, or that you and I are related if you go back far enough (in other words, genome analysis) holds for me and a chimpanzee. The only difference is time. The theory is the mechanism by which this happened, which is natural selection. I have a feeling you misunderstand what a scientific theory IS, it is much different than the lay public uses the term, or a lawyer might.

However, given that you accept "microevolution" (that is small changes in DNA from parent to child caused by mutations) and given that the large physical difference between say, humans and a mouse, are caused by not a whole lot of difference in DNA, why would sufficient time NOT lead to drastic changes? The question then remains how much time we have to work with. Well it turns out we have about 4 billion years. that's 4,000,000,000. That's a lot of generations for variation in a genome, and given that all mammals are pretty similar on the level of DNA, what on earth would STOP such large changes occurring over such vast time? I hope that made sense.

As for mammals/reptiles, mammals did not come from modern day reptiles, but share a common ancestor. This common ancestor would not look much like a reptile or a mammal. There is a difference. This is commonly misunderstood by the general public, when they say "humans did not come from monkeys". Evolution doesn't claim it.

[littlechild]

Lol, all dogs you see today share a common ancestor with the gray wolves. I never CALLED you a sub-high school student, I merely asked how much education you had on evolutionary theory, because you aren't showing much of an understanding of it. You of course avoided the question.

If you think homology establishes ancestry - you will need to prove it to me. I'm from Missouri in that regard. I demand fact checking. Obviously you accept it as a tenet of your faith.

The evidence I gave you was not of variation, it was all of speciation (all the examples I gave were of a species who could not produce offspring with the ancestor it originated from).

Depends on how you define speciation. You give yourself an easy definition. What I mean by speciation is a novel life form exhibiting substantial beneficial morphological changes with new functionality. Like reptiles to mammals, or fish to humans. I think if you do that, then I will accept that you have demonstrated the ability of natural selection to evolve new life forms. Until then, your education profiteth you nothing in this matter

AS far as my cell biology class, I thought it was merely ironic, and did not expect it to mean anything to anyone. However, I don't think it's a shot in the dark to say that I have studied evolution longer than you have. Feel free to correct me though. How much formal biological education do you have?

Yes, how ironic that you are taking a class, and ADVANCED class, on the design of the cell. Wonderful. Now suppose you look at Brownian motion and tell me how bacteria evolved this capability?

I have sufficient education for my needs. You obviously are still attending school and hold it in high regard. You seem to place undue emphasis on the ceremony. Sure it helps, but it doesn't stop when you graduate. It just begins. I don't care how educated you are - I think back to my college days and remember just how much I thought I knew, and how excited I was at the new learning.

Well, I learned how to learn. If you want to compare educations, that's fine. I know two foreign languages. I know tons about computers that you wouldn't have the slightest inkling of. I know some of history, some of philosphy, some of religion.

The bottom line is - no matter how much smarter you THINK you happen to be than me, you will still come up lacking when you try to make claims that you can't back up with physics and math. For instance, that mammals came from reptiles. That variation in the wild can produce exotic new species.

So when you get your degree, come back and tell us how you have accomplished these and other things, like turning lead into gold maybe.

I have read sufficiently to form an opinion. I know how to weigh arguments. I know how to reason and use logic. And I know that William Dembski makes a better argument than Richard Dawkins. You haven't demonstrated otherwise, you have demonstrated only your illogical belief that a diploma means you are right and I am wrong.

I think the irony here is, that I used to believe that science had vetted all their data and substantiated all their claims. The surprise is, they have fallen prey to self-worship, and belief in their own infallibility, in spite of mountains of contrary evidence. They think in circles, and have stopped questioning themselves. At least Dawkins and Sagan have. And it would appear their pre-conceived naturalism has stopped their ability to learn and grow and see things in a new light.

It's a shame really, but all I can say, there, but for the grace of God, go I.

I am really thankful for the ID experts who clarify the subject and illuminate the trail for us. Jonathon Wells, William Dembski, Ralph Seelke, are all real pioneers and furthermore, most of the arguments against them are weak and irrelevant.

You judge for yourself. I judge for me. I am waiting for any one of you to speak to the challenges I have raised, with anything other than contempt, derision, and irrational counterarguments. I want substantiated fact, not your trite come-backs and hissy fits.

I dont' care how much you attack my character, my education, my background, or how much ridicule you heap on me. I am unmoved by that because you don't answer the question scientifically. You need to show how one species begets another whole species, outside of your imagination.

[Billy]

Common ancestry is a historical fact.

Prove it then.

Give me your evidence without referring me to a site.

Well it turns out we have about 4 billion years. that's 4,000,000,000. That's a lot of generations for variation in a genome, and given that all mammals are pretty similar on the level of DNA, what on earth would STOP such large changes occurring over such vast time? I hope that made sense.

Extropolate that back with bacteria which have a replication time of 20 minutes. There should be ample time over the last 50 plus years to document changes of a bacteria transforming into anything other than a bacteria.

Common DNA between species and other classes COULD mean common descent, but does not necessary prove it. This implies that a creator would be required to make different species out of entirely different makeup right? Wouldn't you expect a Chimpanzee's DNA to be more similar to the Human than say a bird just by looking at the similarities?

If you have two shirts and a pair of pants. I would venture to say the the makeup of the shirts are more similar to each other when compared to the pants.

Or another example. If I built two different houses, wouldn't you expect me to use similar building blocks? If the houses are tract homes the similarities would be closer that say two custom houses.

As for mammals/reptiles, mammals did not come from modern day reptiles, but share a common ancestor.

What is that common ancestor?

What is the ancestor that predates humans?

[JangoStango]

If you think homology establishes ancestry - you will need to prove it to me. I'm from Missouri in that regard. I demand fact checking. Obviously you accept it as a tenet of your faith.

Yeah, paternity tests relying on genetic homology don't establish ancestry. Fact checking demands a videotapes of copulation and fertilization in utero. That's how they roll in the "show me" state. [/sarcasm]

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

Our immediate ancestor would be Archaic Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[Billy]

Billy:

Our immediate ancestor would be Archaic Homo Sapiens, we are Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a subspecies not a different species.

"The term Archaic Homo sapiens refers generally to the earliest members of the species Homo sapiens."

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

Domain: Eukaryota

Kingdom: Animalia

Subkingdom: Eumetazoa

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Class: Mammalia

Subclass: Theria

Order: Primates

Superfamily: Hominoidea

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Subtribe: Hominina

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

Subspecies:H. s. sapiens

[Nyal]

Homo Sapiens Sapiens is a subspecies not a different species

Domain: Eukaryota

Kingdom: Animalia

Subkingdom: Eumetazoa

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Class: Mammalia

Subclass: Theria

Order: Primates

Superfamily: Hominoidea

Family: Hominidae

Subfamily: Homininae

Tribe: Hominini

Subtribe: Hominina

Genus: Homo

Species: H. sapiens

Subspecies:H. s. sapiens

I believe the current literature indicated that Homo erectus is our ancestor.

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

[Billy]

I believe the current literature indicated that Homo erectus is our ancestor.

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

"Homo erectus remains one of the most successful and long-lived species of the Homo genus. It is generally considered to have given rise to a number of descendant species and subspecies. The oldest known specimen of the ancient human was found in southern Africa."

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

"It is generally considered" sounds like it is a "possibility" but that they are not really sure about it.

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

There is only one species of hominid left alive that is us. Our most immediate ancestor in Archaic Man

[Billy]

Billy:

There is only one species of hominid left alive that is us. Our most immediate ancestor in Archaic Man

Do you have a specific one in mind?

[Eldwynn]

Depends on how you define speciation. You give yourself an easy definition. What I mean by speciation is a novel life form exhibiting substantial beneficial morphological changes with new functionality. Like reptiles to mammals, or fish to humans. I think if you do that, then I will accept that you have demonstrated the ability of natural selection to evolve new life forms. Until then, your education profiteth you nothing in this matter

Yes, how ironic that you are taking a class, and ADVANCED class, on the design of the cell. Wonderful. Now suppose you look at Brownian motion and tell me how bacteria evolved this capability?

I have sufficient education for my needs. You obviously are still attending school and hold it in high regard. You seem to place undue emphasis on the ceremony. Sure it helps, but it doesn't stop when you graduate. It just begins. I don't care how educated you are - I think back to my college days and remember just how much I thought I knew, and how excited I was at the new learning.

Well, I learned how to learn. If you want to compare educations, that's fine. I know two foreign languages. I know tons about computers that you wouldn't have the slightest inkling of. I know some of history, some of philosphy, some of religion.

The bottom line is - no matter how much smarter you THINK you happen to be than me, you will still come up lacking when you try to make claims that you can't back up with physics and math. For instance, that mammals came from reptiles. That variation in the wild can produce exotic new species.

So when you get your degree, come back and tell us how you have accomplished these and other things, like turning lead into gold maybe.

I have read sufficiently to form an opinion. I know how to weigh arguments. I know how to reason and use logic. And I know that William Dembski makes a better argument than Richard Dawkins. You haven't demonstrated otherwise, you have demonstrated only your illogical belief that a diploma means you are right and I am wrong.

I think the irony here is, that I used to believe that science had vetted all their data and substantiated all their claims. The surprise is, they have fallen prey to self-worship, and belief in their own infallibility, in spite of mountains of contrary evidence. They think in circles, and have stopped questioning themselves. At least Dawkins and Sagan have. And it would appear their pre-conceived naturalism has stopped their ability to learn and grow and see things in a new light.

You judge for yourself. I judge for me. I am waiting for any one of you to speak to the challenges I have raised, with anything other than contempt, derision, and irrational counterarguments. I want substantiated fact, not your trite come-backs and hissy fits.

I dont' care how much you attack my character, my education, my background, or how much ridicule you heap on me. I am unmoved by that because you don't answer the question scientifically.

Please, stop playing the victim card. I have not attacked you personally, at all. It's a non-argument anyways, as someone with philosophy background should understand. Your education (as I have said before) has nothing to do with your understanding of evolution. However, if you had a degree in biology, it would confirm that you do have a understanding of biology. I am not questioning your education. I am questioning your UNDERSTANDING of evolution. I still do. I explained this already. What books on the subject have you read? Anything other than counter-arguments? Can you explain the theory as biology understands it? These are all valid questions for you to answer. I think my analogy with quantum mechanics is a good one. If you don't know anything about something as large as biological evolution, then you should learn about it before you form an opinion for or against it.

You didn't even use the definition of a "species" that biology uses, which is pretty much high school biology(and then you accuse me of making up an "easy" definition). Under the CORRECT biological definition of a species, I have showed you how one species begets another. In fact, it was my first post to you. However, if you meant something else, we can talk about what you meant, rather then what you erroneously communicated to me.

Continuing on, you claim that evolution is mathematically impossible, and disobeys the laws of physics. Could you please explain to me how it is mathematically impossible, and which laws of physics it disobeys?

I am not dodging your question about how "large amounts of change" comes to pass. I have already explained it. If you agree that small DNA changes happen over time, then you have submitted to macroevolution evolution UNLESS you can prove one of the following:

1) there was not enough time for the DNA changes to occur

2) There is some mechanism that stops genetic variation after a small amount.

Hopefully this can turn from getting worked up over personal attacks into a good discussion.

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

Specific "one" in what sense? We do have some skulls. Whether they recognized themselves as distinct individuals in the same way we do. I don't know.

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

https://www.msu.edu/~robin400/sapiensarchaic.html

[Billy]

Billy:

Specific "one" in what sense? We do have some skulls. Whether they recognized themselves as distinct individuals in the same way we do. I don't know.

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

https://www.msu.edu/~robin400/sapiensarchaic.html

For example

"Homo sapiens is assumed to have speciated from Homo heidelbergensis in the period of 200â??160 kya."

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

Notice the word ASSUME. Certainly man may of descended from "Homo heidelbergensis" but it is not certain.

[Eldwynn]

Prove it then.

Give me your evidence without referring me to a site.

Extropolate that back with bacteria which have a replication time of 20 minutes. There should be ample time over the last 50 plus years to document changes of a bacteria transforming into anything other than a bacteria.

Common DNA between species and other classes COULD mean common descent, but does not necessary prove it. This implies that a creator would be required to make different species out of entirely different makeup right? Wouldn't you expect a Chimpanzee's DNA to be more similar to the Human than say a bird just by looking at the similarities?

If you have two shirts and a pair of pants. I would venture to say the the makeup of the shirts are more similar to each other when compared to the pants.

Or another example. If I built two different houses, wouldn't you expect me to use similar building blocks? If the houses are tract homes the similarities would be closer that say two custom houses.

What is that common ancestor?

What is the ancestor that predates humans?

I gave you the evidence.... it was right below, and is even what you responded to.

"Common DNA between species and other classes COULD mean common descent, but does not necessary prove it. This implies that a creator would be required to make different species out of entirely different makeup right? Wouldn't you expect a Chimpanzee's DNA to be more similar to the Human than say a bird just by looking at the similarities?"

You are right. One way to support this hypothesis, would be to find species that look VERY DIFFERENT, but that are actually more closely related to something it looks closer too. Oh wait! There is such a thing. Whales are more closely related to humans (as mammals) when you look at the DNA then they are to fish or reptiles. There is an incredible amount of similar examples if you want more.

More evidence comes from embryology- the fact that humans grow a coat of ape like hair in the womb only to shed it. The fact that humans develop gills and then lose them.

I talked about retroviruses earlier in the thread. This is an enormous evidence for common ancestry.

I know you told me to not tell you to go to a website. However, the website (that has been cited many times, that I doubt anyone has really looked at) that I am going to cite really lays out a lot more information than I could type.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Each section not only lays down the evidence, but also has a paragraph or two explaining what would FALSIFY the evidence. This is an important part of any scientific theory, and something that Intelligent Design never does.

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

I do not understand your fixation on the word "assumed". Everyone makes assumptions. While drive a car on the freeway we make the logical assumption that oncoming traffic will stay on their side of the freeway. The list is almost endless of assumptions we make every day.

It would be very hard to function any other way.

Scientists are no different, until further contradictory information comes along it is a safe assumption that we are the descendants of Archaic Man. I'm just giving you the best understand that I can reasonable post on a religious message board.

Ps. Here is how real science works.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn...govDel=USNSF_51

[Eldwynn]

Definitely agree with the above. People love saying "science is only theory" or criticize the way scientists talk. They talk this way for a very good philisophical reason, and the general public typically misunderstands it. A nice definition of theory is "How the world works". A theory is an explanation for an observed phenomena. Some theories are more powerful than others. The theory that genes cause someone to be homosexual is a pretty weak theory. The theory that germs cause disease is a very supported theory-- but still a theory. Evolution is probably one of the strongest supported theories around, and part of that is thanks to people being so critical of it. A lot more evidence for evolution was found and discovered because the general public had such a problem with it.

But they are all theories none the less, and are falsifiable, something that many religious people I have encountered do not find important (to their own theories of why the world works the way it does).

[Billy]

You are right. One way to support this hypothesis, would be to find species that look VERY DIFFERENT, but that are actually more closely related to something it looks closer too. Oh wait! There is such a thing. Whales are more closely related to humans (as mammals) when you look at the DNA then they are to fish or reptiles. There is an incredible amount of similar examples if you want more.

You know without DNA evidence that whales DNA would be closer to humans than fish to human comparison by looking at the biological classification.

Whale

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Mammalia

Infraclass: Eutheria

Superorder: Laurasiatheria

(unranked) Cetartiodactyla

(unranked) Whippomorpha

Order: Cetacea

More evidence comes from embryology- the fact that humans grow a coat of ape like hair in the womb only to shed it. The fact that humans develop gills and then lose them.

Lanugo in your best evidence for evoulution?

I talked about retroviruses earlier in the thread. This is an enormous evidence for common ancestry.

I think that this is good circumstantial evidence for evolution.

I know you told me to not tell you to go to a website. However, the website (that has been cited many times, that I doubt anyone has really looked at) that I am going to cite really lays out a lot more information than I could type.

Here is the first one lets look at it

"The univeral genetic code

There must be a mechanism for transmitting information from the genetic material to the catalytic material. All known organisms, with extremely rare exceptions, use the same genetic code for this.

Potential Falsification:

. . .Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material."

Sure if we are from common descent then we would have a universal code ATGC. But if we were created we would likely have a common code. I don't think this is strong evidence for evolution one way or the other.