When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?

[james bond]

The ancestors of wolves are wolves. Has something ever adapted to their environment? Absolutely. When the fruit on the ground was hard to get only those with the longer necks could reach it so we got a giraffe. All the same the giraffe is still the same animal it was to start with but with a longer neck.

This is what I mean. We can see the changes from one change in species to another. We can't see that with apes to humans such as no monkeys are bipedal. Macroevolution is basically a hypothesis or best guess and that's it.

That's fine and I made the argument so I will not argue with you but you aren't going to have a better time proving that which you condemn.

You made the argument for microevolution and I agreed with you, but we do not see the same with macroevolution. I'll just assume you see my POV (plus I got the OP finding now).

 

[Crepitus]

When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?

Why would they do something like that?

Just because science continues to gain information?

That's what science is supposed to do!

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.

 

[pknopp]

The ancestors of wolves are wolves. Has something ever adapted to their environment? Absolutely. When the fruit on the ground was hard to get only those with the longer necks could reach it so we got a giraffe. All the same the giraffe is still the same animal it was to start with but with a longer neck.

This is what I mean. We can see the changes from one change in species to another. We can't see that with apes to humans such as no monkeys are bipedal. Macroevolution is basically a hypothesis or best guess and that's it.

That's fine and I made the argument so I will not argue with you but you aren't going to have a better time proving that which you condemn.

You made the argument for microevolution and I agreed with you, but we do not see the same with macroevolution. I'll just assume you see my POV (plus I got the OP finding now).

I agree that neither side can prove their position.

 

[konradv]

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

Adaptation has a lot of evidence. Actual evolution not so much.

What’s the difference?

I explained that already. Read further.

Rhetorical question. There is no difference.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I find it funny that creationists find evolution so far-fetched while believing people just popped out of thin air.

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

That million year old fossil record say's otherwise.

 

[pknopp]

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

Adaptation has a lot of evidence. Actual evolution not so much.

What’s the difference?

I explained that already. Read further.

Rhetorical question. There is no difference.

Of course there is.

 

[konradv]

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

Adaptation has a lot of evidence. Actual evolution not so much.

What’s the difference?

I explained that already. Read further.

Rhetorical question. There is no difference.

Of course there is.

Adaptation is evolution

 

[pknopp]

The facts are, neither side can prove their side.

Evolution has an overwhelming amount of evidence to support it.

Adaptation has a lot of evidence. Actual evolution not so much.

What’s the difference?

I explained that already. Read further.

Rhetorical question. There is no difference.

Of course there is.

Adaptation is evolution

No it isn't. If it was the same it wouldn't be called something different. To evolve one would have to adapt and we have plenty examples of that but to have evolved into something else, we have none.

The house pets ancestors were wolves but all are still canines. There is NO proof that the house pets ancestors were ever something else.

 

[james bond]

Why would they do something like that?

Because we want to know the truth about human origins. Not just the fake evolution science. Rye Catcher linked to the Smithsonian and they do not tell the whole story. They lie. They spent an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and lied.

"The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums."

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

answersingenesis.org

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.

This is further evidence you believe in the bullshit of atheism. The evidence is for creation not abiogenesis.

 

[Crepitus]

Why would they do something like that?

Because we want to know the truth about human origins. Not just the fake evolution science. Rye Catcher linked to the Smithsonian and they do not tell the whole story. They lie. They spent an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and lied.

"The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums."

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

answersingenesis.org

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.

This is further evidence you believe in the bullshit of atheism. The evidence is for creation not abiogenesis.

 

[Hollie]

Why would they do something like that?

Because we want to know the truth about human origins. Not just the fake evolution science. Rye Catcher linked to the Smithsonian and they do not tell the whole story. They lie. They spent an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and lied.

"The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums."

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

answersingenesis.org

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.

This is further evidence you believe in the bullshit of atheism. The evidence is for creation not abiogenesis.

Your conspiracy theories are over the top loopy.

 

[Rye Catcher]

If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related. Darwin just had a hypothesis. He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence. Furthermore, we still have apes and all are not bipedal.

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp

All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of...

www.icr.org

DNA and the genome support Darwin's hypothesis; there is no scientific support for Adam and Eve.

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

Are you into biology?

Yes, but that was BEFORE the finding of 3-D study of the human genome (actually looking at a 3-dimensional structure).

"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse.1

One of the best ways to empirically understand the 3-D configuration of chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell is to define topologically associating domains (TADs) in the DNA sequence. TADs are characterized as regions whose DNA sequences preferentially contact and interact with each other in association with specific cell types and biological functions. TADs were first discovered in 2012 using newly developed chromosome conformation analysis techniques.2 In mammals, the median TAD length is about 900,000 DNA letters (bases) long—a sizeable stretch of DNA that typically contains multiple genes and many regulatory switches and control features.3

One important aspect of 3-D genome structure has to do with the epigenetic modification of proteins called histones that the DNA is wrapped around. A 2011 study showed that a specific type of histone modification had only about a 70% overlap or similarity between humans and chimps.4 Remarkably, another study in 2012 showed that humans had about a 70% similarity for the same feature with mice.5 In other words, humans were as different to mice as they were to chimps for this particular genome conformation metric "

Yawn.

 

[james bond]

If apes and humans are too different, then they cannot possibly be related. Darwin just had a hypothesis. He wasn't able to back it up with real science and evidence. Furthermore, we still have apes and all are not bipedal.

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp
"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse."

3-D Human Genome Radically Different from Chimp

All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of...

www.icr.org

DNA and the genome support Darwin's hypothesis; there is no scientific support for Adam and Eve.

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

Are you into biology?

Yes, but that was BEFORE the finding of 3-D study of the human genome (actually looking at a 3-dimensional structure).

"All plant and animal genomes studied so far exhibit complex and distinct three-dimensional (3-D) structures in their chromosome configurations depending on the type of cell (e.g., heart, liver, brain, etc.). Given the incredible variability among genome configurations within a single type of creature, let alone that which exists between creatures (e.g., human vs. chimpanzee), this area of evolutionary comparison has been difficult for secular researchers. Now a new study published in Trends in Genetics evaluates research in this emerging field that shows the human 3-D genome is distinctly unique to humans, confirming previous research that showed it is as different compared to chimp as it is to mouse.1

One of the best ways to empirically understand the 3-D configuration of chromosomes in the nucleus of the cell is to define topologically associating domains (TADs) in the DNA sequence. TADs are characterized as regions whose DNA sequences preferentially contact and interact with each other in association with specific cell types and biological functions. TADs were first discovered in 2012 using newly developed chromosome conformation analysis techniques.2 In mammals, the median TAD length is about 900,000 DNA letters (bases) long—a sizeable stretch of DNA that typically contains multiple genes and many regulatory switches and control features.3

One important aspect of 3-D genome structure has to do with the epigenetic modification of proteins called histones that the DNA is wrapped around. A 2011 study showed that a specific type of histone modification had only about a 70% overlap or similarity between humans and chimps.4 Remarkably, another study in 2012 showed that humans had about a 70% similarity for the same feature with mice.5 In other words, humans were as different to mice as they were to chimps for this particular genome conformation metric "

Yawn.

The Bible supports Adam and Eve. Regardless, I use science to explain how humans are not related to monkeys.

I asked for the transitional fossils and you provide none. There are none for evolution of monkeys to humans. The skulls you have of ancient humans are those of more recent humans. We have people with skulls like that today.

 

[james bond]

Why would they do something like that?

Because we want to know the truth about human origins. Not just the fake evolution science. Rye Catcher linked to the Smithsonian and they do not tell the whole story. They lie. They spent an enormous amount of taxpayer dollars and lied.

"The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums."

Smithsonian Exhibition—Deception and Atheism

The purpose of this exhibit on the origin of man is not only to indoctrinate children and adults in evolution, but also atheism!

answersingenesis.org

They've still got no evidence of creationism at all.

This is further evidence you believe in the bullshit of atheism. The evidence is for creation not abiogenesis.

View attachment 440684

The Smithsonian spent a great amount of money on that exhibit. It's the exhibit for the Hall of Human Origins and it's all a lie. There are no six to eight million years of Earth history. It's incredible that a science group can actually believe their own BS.

"The National Museum of Natural History, funded by donations and tax money, recently opened its new exhibition on human origins. The NMNH in Washington D.C. is one of the famed Smithsonian Museums.

To build this exhibition, called the Hall of Human Origins, the Smithsonian spent almost as much money as we did to build the entire 70,000 square-foot, high-tech Creation Museum near Cincinnati!"

...

"In a CNSNews report,1 with a headline that included the words Devoid of References to God, we read the following about the new exhibit:

The stages of human development also are highlighted, but visitors will not find any references to God, creationism, or pre-natal existence. The exhibit’s Web site says fossils “provide evidence that modern humans evolved from earlier humans.”

The report continues:

. . . Richard Potts, curator and director of the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program, said the Smithsonian Institution has a “deep commitment to the study of evolution” and that the new permanent exhibit will answer “profound questions” about human origins.

When asked by CNSNews.com why the exhibit does not include any reference to God or address the debate—even in scientific circles—about Darwinian evolution, Potts replied that the Natural History Museum ‘is a science museum, and all the objects that a museum can possibly display about the origins of humans have been uncovered in the context of doing the science of evolution.’

Note two very telling admissions here:

Regarding his quote “. . . all the objects that a museum can possibly display about the origins of humans have been uncovered . . .” well, that is simply not true. “All” that can be “possibly displayed”? What about the Bible’s account of human origins? The Bible is a document that claims to be the Word of the Creator concerning how humans came to be on this planet.

Why won’t Potts and his researchers include that? Well, they have arbitrarily defined science (which means “knowledge”) as having nothing to do with God. They will only allow explanations according to their view of naturalism, the religion of atheism.

It becomes even clearer in the second admission:

. . . in the context of doing the science of evolution.
Evolution, in the Darwinian sense (using naturalism and no supernaturalism), is their bottom-line presupposition. It’s used to interpret the evidence of the fossils they display as they attempt to reconstruct the unobservable past.

In an interview with the Washington Post,2 Potts was asked whether creationism would be found in the Hall of Human Origins. He replied: “There’s no Adam and Eve here.” He continued: “If you believe that the world—and man—was created in seven days, and that it’s only thousands of years old, you might have a little problem with an exhibition that talks about a process of 6 million to 8 million years.”

Later in the Post article, when asked what he hopes visitors will take away from the exhibition, Potts replied: “A sense of the sacred.” That almost sounds as if he wants the hall to be a kind of a temple, where visitors can be worshipful of the fossils of their apelike ancestors!"

 

[james bond]

The six to eight million years the modern spokesperson for the Smithsonian claims is since Darwin's time. Before that, we didn't know how long we were here, but many thought it was around 6,000 years according to AMNH.

"Before Darwin was born, most people in England accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were not linked in a single "family tree." They were unconnected, unrelated, and unchanged since the moment of their creation. And Earth itself was thought to be so young--perhaps only 6,000 years old--that there would not have been time for species to change. In any case, people were not part of the natural world; they were above and outside it."

Thus, what you were taught in public school isn't that old and goes against what was taught in the past.

The World Before Darwin | AMNH

Before Darwin was born, most people in England accepted certain ideas about the natural world as given. Species were unconnected, unrelated, and unchanged since the moment of their creation. Earth...

www.amnh.org

 

[Ringtone]

Evolution is a fact:

LOL! You don't really know that to be true. I've observed the actual and underlying impetus of your philosophical conviction in your posts over the years. You fail to grasp that the hypothesis of evolution is predicated on metaphysical naturalism—a circularity of reasoning, begging the question—that all of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of strictly natural cause-and-effect speciation over geological time; in other words, evolution is necessarily true because metaphysical naturalism is necessarily true, an article of faith that is, of course, scientifically unfalsifiable. Scientifically trained biologists of the evolutionary hypothesis believe that naturalism must be true because the speciation of adaptive radiation is true and because the paleontological record entails the chronologically sequential appearances of species of a generally increasing complexity and variety over geological time.

Hocus Pocus

Adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, which is reductive, natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow of a cyclically limited range to the taxonomic level of genus is all we actually observe. The putative evolutionary branching and transmutational speciation from a common ancestry is not and cannot be observed. Not now, not ever!

But the sheep who are consciously unaware of their metaphysical bias, incessantly appeal to authority, spout slogans and ad hominem, and typically know little to nothing about biology go "bah, bah, bah."

 

[Ringtone]

Furthermore, we still have apes and all are not bipedal.

Just to be sure. You're not suggesting that the continuous existence of apes falsifies evolution, are you? Also, all apes, indeed, all primates, are capable of bipedal locomotion. Humans are the only bipeds proper. That's all.

 

[Ringtone]

DNA and the genome support Darwin's hypothesis; there is no scientific support for Adam and Eve.

Genetics

humanorigins.si.edu

The assertion that genetics entail "no scientific support for Adam and Eve" is nonsensical and, essentially, meaningless, pseudoscientific gibberish.

The article you cited goes to the genetically negligible difference between humans and other primates in terms of percentile. This mostly pertains to genetic content and much less to genetic sequencing and structure. The difference in genetic sequencing and structure is significantly different, resulting in an exponentially tremendous difference in terms of intelligence and adaptability

In any event, why, precisely, do you believe that this genetic similarity in terms of content necessarily supports the hypothesis of evolution, much less the metaphysical presupposition thereof?

 

[Hollie]

When Is An Evolution Scientist Ever Going To Admit The Other Side May Be Right?


When is the side promoting supernatural / magical gods going to demonstrate those gods? There are lots of gods invented by many societies so the thread title is actually aimed at religious people.

It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it’s possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause but that still wouldn’t prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn’t prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and demand they be accountable at some level?

In a historical sense, the ''correct'' gods were often the gods whose followers had the largest armies, caliber of weapons and volume of fire.

 

[Ringtone]

When is the side promoting supernatural / magical gods going to demonstrate those gods? There are lots of gods invented by many societies so the thread title is actually aimed at religious people.

It is the process of science that explores and discovers. Now, it’s possible that science could be stymied and could hit the wall so-to-speak at finding a purely natural cause but that still wouldn’t prove a supernatural causation and it still wouldn’t prove god(s). How do we discern the truth? By faith? By assertion and stepping away and accepting untested and anecdotal claims? Or do we assiduously test our truths, hold them up to scrutiny and demand they be accountable at some level?

In a historical sense, the ''correct'' gods were often the gods whose followers had the largest armies, caliber of weapons and volume of fire.