Evolution - A serious question.

[PearlWatson]

It's not absurd speculation. It's predictive.

Evolution (change in gene frequencies in a population over time) is a fact. Speciation is a fact. Natural Selection is a fact. Mutations are fact. Mutations occurring in creation of and combining of gametes is a fact. Given all these facts, and using common traits and thus common ancestry, science can predict a result (for the future) or occurrence (for the past). There has never been any scientific evidence to refute the predictive nature of the Theory of Evolution, only the specific timelines for when they occur.

Using the Theory of Evolution, one would state that humans are more related to mice than spiders. Or put another way, humans have a closer ancestor to mice than spiders. This is because humans have more common traits to mice than spiders. Four appendages to eight. Mammary glands to none, etc. Genetics prove that humans are more closely related to mice than spiders. There's no evidence to the contrary that humans are more related to mice than spiders.

We know without uncertainty what happens in the small scale. It's used to predict the large scale, and has yet to be shown to be incorrect.

It ain't predictions if you're talking about what already supposedly happened in the past. Mice either evolved from a single-celled "population" by Darwinian mechanisms or it didn't. You can either show people the fossil evidence for this or you can't. Darwinists can't. You can't say look at this flat desert here...it is a micro-flatearth. This micro-flatearth predicts the entire earth is flat. If you are doing science you have to show people that the world is flat with evidence, if that is what you believe is the case.

Without using the theory of evolution one would say humans have more physical traits in common with mice than spiders. You can observe it. How does this prove that humans came from mice? or that they did this by random Darwinian mechanisms?
Genetics show that the human genome (design code) is more identical to a mouse genome than a spider genome, in the same way computer software designed with similar features in mind (like mammaries that squeeze out milk and fascinate males) would look similar. It doesn't mean that one computer software program randomly mutated its way from the other.

What would it take for someone to show your theory to be incorrect in its "predictions?" What test can be conducted to disprove it?
When Einstein announced his theory of relativity, he also offered a series of empirical tests that would prove it false. That's what made it a scientific theory.
What are the "Theory of Evolution's" empirical tests?

 

[The-Joker]

Why the hell are we wasting billions of research dollars on a pseudoscience that is trying to prove we all came from "ancestral populations" of ape-like thingies?
Shouldn't we spend that money on actual science that is useful.

Most of that money is medical research. Medicine and evolution are pretty much the same

 

[billyshelby]

What he's saying is he likes how this thread has evolved.
The Cro-Magnon man is gone, but the Ape's are still here and are fighting with the closest thing to Homo Sapiens we have in this thread, who by the way are using the Ape grunts as batting practice balls.

The funny thing is, it will take God to tell us who is in which category.

Very funny summation.

 

[PearlWatson]

Medicine and evolution are pretty much the same

No.

 

[The-Joker]

No.

What's the difference?

 

[PearlWatson]

What's the difference?

Your face.
Sentences in the middle.
Your ***.

 

[The-Joker]

Your face.
Sentences in the middle.
Your ***.

Right....

we have a winner folks...

 

[NUMBERICA]

What is your definition of evolution if you are separating it from the "humans from ape" question?

I have a more productive question. You believe in a creator, correct?

 

[NUMBERICA]

Just kidding, that's rhetorical. Of course you do.

 

[One Brow]

That ain't really helpful to say the exact thing over again. All the attributes of a mouse have to be manifest in one mouse (not spread out in the mouse-like population) for that mouse to pass those traits on.

Wrong, in two ways. First, some mice have brown coats, some have black coats, some have gray coats. No mopuise needs to have all possible coat colors.

Second, it the various traits are manifest in just one mouse, that mouse will probably not pass them on. 99.9% of libneages die off.

In your example of mice becoming different type of mice you started out with all the attributes of the mouse in the first pair from Europe. How the hell did those mice get all those attributes to begin with?

From their parents.

You don't have any evidence for mice evolving from a single celled organism population. So that is just absurd speculation.

None? that's simple denialism, nothing more.

I stated they were his stories, and yes they were his explanations of how natural selection supposedly worked.

Hoiwever, they were not intended to be definitive histories.

It ain't predictions if you're talking about what already supposedly happened in the past.

You can use reconstructions of the past to make predictions about the present. For example, We knew where to look for Tiltaalik rosae becasue of evolution.

Mice either evolved from a single-celled "population" by Darwinian mechanisms or it didn't. You can either show people the fossil evidence for this or you can't. Darwinists can't.

We hve evidence of the origins of fish from earlier sea creatures. Amphibians from fish. Reptiles from amphibians. Mammals from reptiles. Mice from more generic mammals.

Without using the theory of evolution one would say humans have more physical traits in common with mice than spiders. You can observe it. How does this prove that humans came from mice?

Humans did not come from mice.

or that they did this by random Darwinian mechanisms?

Actually, it was a combination of random mechanisms and non-random mechanisms.

Genetics show that the human genome (design code) is more identical to a mouse genome than a spider genome, in the same way computer software designed with similar features in mind (like mammaries that squeeze out milk and fascinate males) would look similar. It doesn't mean that one computer software program randomly mutated its way from the other.

There are many processes common to all known forms of life. You can even switch the genomes involved in these processes from organism to organism. Yet, the relationship tree from the genetic sequencing of these processes matching the relationship tree from external characteristics. Only evolution, or a designer trying to fool humans into believing evolution. explains this.

What would it take for someone to show your theory to be incorrect in its "predictions?" What test can be conducted to disprove it? ...What are the "Theory of Evolution's" empirical tests?

Douglas Theobald wrote www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ to list the evidences for evolution. Each evidence describes an observation that would disprove it. They didn't cover that on Uncommon Descent for you?

 

[JohnStockalypse]

Is the blue footed booby coming back before or after Jesus???!!???

 

[sirkickyass]

I like Psych. It is kind of fun. I am still uncertain how Futurama is a scientist, but ok.

One of my high school classmates is a writer for "Psych." The show is so terminally unfunny that a common prologue to responses to her in arguments on facebook is along the lines of "It's usually a bad idea to get into a flame war with a comedy writer, but given that I've seen 'Psych' I think I'll take my chances here..."

Pisses her off every time.

 

[colton]

One of my high school classmates is a writer for "Psych." The show is so terminally unfunny...

Wow, ouch. I'm with LogGrad on this one. I think it's a hilarious show, definitely one of the tops on TV. Maybe even my very favorite comedy. I would say something about how my opinion might be swayed because it's obviously geared for people my age, what with all the 80's references, except my two daughters absolutely love it also.

 

[sirkickyass]

Wow, ouch. I'm with LogGrad on this one. I think it's a hilarious show, definitely one of the tops on TV. Maybe even my very favorite comedy. I would say something about how my opinion might be swayed because it's obviously geared for people my age, what with all the 80's references, except my two daughters absolutely love it also.

If you want more material I'd link you to her bridal blog, but it's got language unsuitable for jazzfanz.

 

[colton]

Bridal blog? Thanks, but no thanks.

P.S. You probably didn't like Monk either. Spoilsport.

 

[sirkickyass]

Bridal blog? Thanks, but no thanks.

P.S. You probably didn't like Monk either. Spoilsport.

I did like Monk. But that was mostly because of Tony Chaloub.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Wow, ouch. I'm with LogGrad on this one. I think it's a hilarious show, definitely one of the tops on TV. Maybe even my very favorite comedy. I would say something about how my opinion might be swayed because it's obviously geared for people my age, what with all the 80's references, except my two daughters absolutely love it also.

I'm with Colton and LogGrad on this one. Psyche is a very funny show.
The only show that is funnier is Chopped.

Ok, I'm kidding about Chopped, but Psyche makes me laugh every time.

 

[TroutBum]

Stop ruining this thread, you damn dirty apes!

 

[PearlWatson]

Wrong, in two ways. First, some mice have brown coats, some have black coats, some have gray coats. No mopuise needs to have all possible coat colors.

Second, it the various traits are manifest in just one mouse, that mouse will probably not pass them on. 99.9% of libneages die off.

From their parents.

All the mice have coats. Their parents each had a coat. No new attributes...just changes to the color of one that already existed. Woopdeedoo.

We hve evidence of the origins of fish from earlier sea creatures. Amphibians from fish. Reptiles from amphibians. Mammals from reptiles. Mice from more generic mammals.

What evidence is there that fish came from "earlier sea creatures," that amphibians came from fish, that reptiles came from amphibians, that mammal came from reptiles, and that mice came from "more generic mammals?"

Humans did not come from mice.

What early mammal did humans come from then?

There are many processes common to all known forms of life. You can even switch the genomes involved in these processes from organism to organism. Yet, the relationship tree from the genetic sequencing of these processes matching the relationship tree from external characteristics. Only evolution, or a designer trying to fool humans into believing evolution. explains this.

Our genome is 35% identical to a daffodil's but even a Darwiniac wouldn't say we share 35% of its external characteristics.

The animal sequences (drawings) do not prove that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection caused the similarities. It is just as likely that the similarities are proof of intelligent design or creationism.
"In point of fact" the similarities that that you are so fascinated by look more like the progress of a designed object than the result of a series of lucky accidents.
You can see similarities in the progress from a black and white TV to a HDTV, from a one lane road to a freeway, from vms to gmail. All these are known for being the products of "intelligent designers."

 

[moevillini]

I did like Monk. But that was mostly because of Tony Chaloub.

the guy who played Capt. Stoddlemeyer lived down the block from us. Or at least his parents did. He might have already been out of the house at that point.

OK, well obviously, he was out of the house if he was in LA filming a television show.