You could argue that evolution attracts atheists and agnostics too. So what? Irrelevant what one view "attracts" vs the other.
And what is "purely scientific" supposed to mean? As opposed to what? As if evolution is not philosophically based? As if it's philosophically neutral? As if it can't be challenged on the basis of its built in bias?
Of course it is. It's based on naturalism. They don't even investigate or consider that life is created. Their philosophy only allows one interpretation of each and every fact, and that is that life is self-creating. It's a dogma.
No observation of common descent? Where the **** did you study biology?
Junk DNA sequences? Comparative anatomy (eg tetrapod arm bones)? Atavisms? Inter-species breeding with sterile offpring (eg mules)? Comparative embryology (not Haeckel's drawings, the modern stuff)? Either get enough education that you can understand the issues, or stfu.
Re tetrapod arm bones - explain why a designer would use the same set of bones to create flippers, wings, legs and organs of manipulation, *and* to appear in vestigial organs.
This is you interpreting everything according to your religion. This is NOT science. You cannot test this dogma. It's like reading tea leaves. There's no wrong answer.
Why would a designer use the same set of steps to make a ladder or a stoop? I dunno. Maybe because the design serve a function?
Bones gives structure. Without them you're a jellyfish.
Because your comment was that bones were needed for structure (which doesn't answer the anatomicalsimilarities among structures which have different functions, but let that pass), and inscts show that this is not in fact the case.
How you test common descent is by building up an enormous mass of evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology and DNA. The hallmarks of common descent are in all these areas. Not one shred of evidence for creation has been found though. End of!
It's a tautology to say that similar things are similar. And, what's worse, the argument for common descent uses BOTH similarity AND dissimilarity to support it! You see? There is no way to TEST this claim. It is a BELIEF about origins and that's all.
Asking why similar things are similar and not dissimilar is useless when the theory "explains" BOTH at the same time!
The scientific method does not apply to this claim since it is not falsifiable, therefore the claim is not science.
No, I'm using comsiderations of both analogous and homologous evolution. In any case, you haven't answered Q1 (evidence of anaologous evolution in tetrapod limb bones) yet. The "same structures" argument won't wash - we're talking flippers, wings, legs and human hands being mad from *the same bones*. Cars don't have sails. Boats don't have wings. BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNED. See the difference now? I can't carry on trying to educate you in short comments posts. Can we take this elsewhere?
So because boats don't have wings, all tetrapods have a common ancestor, huh? Wow. Now that's science.
You can write me if you want, but only if you are very brief and stick to what you can demonstrate via the scientific method. I'm not interested in your beliefs. Can you do that?
Don't write me a book. I won't read it. I'll familiar with all this stuff. Just make your testable claim and show me the test. All else is BS.
@MillionthUsername OOps. I thought your post sounded like you were an evo-ite until I read more of them, so removed my commment.
However,you made one point I hadn't thought of in a few years debating them. Give me an ex. of what you mean when you say evo is claiming both similarity & dissimilarity as evidence. Sounds interesting.
Address the issues I mentioned - Junk DNA? Comparative anatomy? Atavisms? Embryology? What about ERVs as well? I suggest you read Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish' as a readable intro to state-of-the-art-biology.
What bias?
RPR1983 3 years ago
You could argue that evolution attracts atheists and agnostics too. So what? Irrelevant what one view "attracts" vs the other.
And what is "purely scientific" supposed to mean? As opposed to what? As if evolution is not philosophically based? As if it's philosophically neutral? As if it can't be challenged on the basis of its built in bias?
MillionthUsername 3 years ago
Evolution is not "philosophically based", it's based on observation of reality, like all good science.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
Of course it is. It's based on naturalism. They don't even investigate or consider that life is created. Their philosophy only allows one interpretation of each and every fact, and that is that life is self-creating. It's a dogma.
There is no observation of common descent.
If you think you've observed it, let me know.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
No observation of common descent? Where the **** did you study biology?
Junk DNA sequences? Comparative anatomy (eg tetrapod arm bones)? Atavisms? Inter-species breeding with sterile offpring (eg mules)? Comparative embryology (not Haeckel's drawings, the modern stuff)? Either get enough education that you can understand the issues, or stfu.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
"Comparative anatomy (eg tetrapod arm bones)"
That's observing common descent? You're joking.
That's reading your theory into everything you see. You always assume your conclusion. It's moronic, and has nothing to do with science.
How do you go about falsifying that claim?
Don't tell me to "stfu," you religious dogmatist of nonsense. Learn what real science is. Learn the scientific method. Don't tell me of your dogma.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Re tetrapod arm bones - explain why a designer would use the same set of bones to create flippers, wings, legs and organs of manipulation, *and* to appear in vestigial organs.
The floor is yours.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
This is you interpreting everything according to your religion. This is NOT science. You cannot test this dogma. It's like reading tea leaves. There's no wrong answer.
Why would a designer use the same set of steps to make a ladder or a stoop? I dunno. Maybe because the design serve a function?
Bones gives structure. Without them you're a jellyfish.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
You don't know. That's your answer?
Not that convincing. As for needing bones to give structure, explain how insects fly perfectly well with wings which do NOT contain bones.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
You asked me about bones for TETRAPODS.
Why are you talking about insects now?
What's "not convincing" about bones providing structure? Do they not provide structure?
Answer the question of how you test your dogma of common descent.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Because your comment was that bones were needed for structure (which doesn't answer the anatomicalsimilarities among structures which have different functions, but let that pass), and inscts show that this is not in fact the case.
How you test common descent is by building up an enormous mass of evidence from the fossil record, comparative anatomy, embryology and DNA. The hallmarks of common descent are in all these areas. Not one shred of evidence for creation has been found though. End of!
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
It's a tautology to say that similar things are similar. And, what's worse, the argument for common descent uses BOTH similarity AND dissimilarity to support it! You see? There is no way to TEST this claim. It is a BELIEF about origins and that's all.
Asking why similar things are similar and not dissimilar is useless when the theory "explains" BOTH at the same time!
The scientific method does not apply to this claim since it is not falsifiable, therefore the claim is not science.
End of.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
No, I'm using comsiderations of both analogous and homologous evolution. In any case, you haven't answered Q1 (evidence of anaologous evolution in tetrapod limb bones) yet. The "same structures" argument won't wash - we're talking flippers, wings, legs and human hands being mad from *the same bones*. Cars don't have sails. Boats don't have wings. BECAUSE THEY'RE DESIGNED. See the difference now? I can't carry on trying to educate you in short comments posts. Can we take this elsewhere?
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
You want to "educate" me? How kind.
"Boats don't have wings." LOL.
So because boats don't have wings, all tetrapods have a common ancestor, huh? Wow. Now that's science.
You can write me if you want, but only if you are very brief and stick to what you can demonstrate via the scientific method. I'm not interested in your beliefs. Can you do that?
Don't write me a book. I won't read it. I'll familiar with all this stuff. Just make your testable claim and show me the test. All else is BS.
MillionthUsername 2 years ago
Comment removed
LoricaLady 3 months ago
@MillionthUsername OOps. I thought your post sounded like you were an evo-ite until I read more of them, so removed my commment.
However,you made one point I hadn't thought of in a few years debating them. Give me an ex. of what you mean when you say evo is claiming both similarity & dissimilarity as evidence. Sounds interesting.
LoricaLady 3 months ago
I think I have observed common descent.
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago
no it is not !
XjyujX 2 years ago
Oh yes it is!
Do you want to carry on in panto fashion, or would you like to look at the evidence?
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
I am looking at the evidence, and it is poor at best, or bad science.
XjyujX 2 years ago
Address the issues I mentioned - Junk DNA? Comparative anatomy? Atavisms? Embryology? What about ERVs as well? I suggest you read Neil Shubin's 'Your Inner Fish' as a readable intro to state-of-the-art-biology.
Timbul53525253 2 years ago
Why cause you said so?
XjyujX 2 years ago
Because you just claimed the evidence is poor or bad science ... so if you don't care to qualify that claim it's redundant.
You might as well just comment "la-la-la, I'm not listening!"
MaxSafeheaD 2 years ago