Does any religion matter at all today?

by Stox 16 Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:35 am

First topic message reminder :

I will be interested to read peoples thoughts on this question. Does any Religion matter at all today?

I cannot see that any religious church's or anything religious even matters today at all. The only true religion I have ever come across is, Money, Political Power, Land, and greed. all the things we are told they are against, this goes for all religions too in my view.

in fact all the faiths I have come across use all of the tools of money, political power, Land and greed to re-force there religious views on there followers. i have never come across any religion that does not use at least one of this tools to enforce there religious views on the people they are said to be looking after.

I have read over the years all the religious books i can find, and have yet too be moved by any of them. some have very good stories that have something in them for every reader. but their it ends for me. maybe someone can explain why any of this is so important today? as i cannot find anything within the books that states this is very important today or in the past. I myself have come to believe that religion has more to do with the thought of death or dying and the human need to believe that life goes on after death.

However, when we was all born we did not feel pain or come into being with some religious thought in our heads or a book in our hands did we? in fact we had know idea about religion at all? so only find out what religion we are when someone tells us that this is our religion? yet you would think we would all know this already if there was a god? So we only find out what our religion is after birth? or do you believe you know what you religion was before birth? (i did not) if someone told me i was a follower of Islam, I would of said OK at five years old. in fact they could of given me any religion and i would of said fine.

So religion seems to me, religion only matters a get deal more the older you get? so I am told, well if so its failing on me badly. so anyway, it matter more as you get closer to death then? so is this more to do with our human need for life to go on somehow? as we find it hard to believe that life comes to an end and we go into darkness of no mans land? just like before we was born?

I was told at about 6 years old by my mother that this was my faith. but in total truth my mother could of said any faith was my religion and i would of gone along with what she said. To me that was it, Its that simple then. i did not then think about anything religious till i was in the Army in standing in a street in the middle of green line in a war zone in the Lebanon. with both Christains killing, Muslims Killing, Catholic Maronite's Killing, Druze faith Killing, Jewish killing. at first wondering why they was all doing this? not for religion or faith but power and using religion to justify there actions. I remember thinking. just suppose these people had been given a different religion by there mothers. they would instead of killing as a Maronite gunman they would of been killing Maronite's as a Druze gunman?

So your religion is picked for you in my view and some even change it too. yet you would think if you know your god at your death. you should know who you god is before birth? but we do not. So does any of this really matter any more?

well i well be interrested to read your thought on this. its not about any one religion but all of them.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:09 pm

You know you have got the loonies by the throat when they resort to legal objections to scientific theories, its like shooting ducks in a barrel.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:15 pm

The old creationist loonies hiding behind Intelligent Design and Creation Science haven't fared too well in the American Law courts, seemingly there was proof and direct evidence that Creationism has no scientific basis, its just thinly disguised religion.

Texas objects to the legal findings on scientific grounds...of course....LMAO.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:20 pm

SO WHEN YOU STRIP AWAY ALL THE FLATULENCE, VERBOSITY, DUPLICITY, PRETENSION AND EVASION, WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH ?

No scientific objections to evolution, none, not a single one, nothing to examine, nothing to peer review and nothing to test.

It just screams FAKE. cyclops

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:03 pm

“And”… proof remains nonexistent, direct evidence remains nonexistent.

No one said anything about proof! We are talking about evidence and what it suggests. If I'm going to wonder about the world, I want it to be plausible answers. The world does not operate on a supernatural plane so things are not magicked into existence at some superheroes whim and whimsy. Nothing else in the world works like that so why should we believe that the world came into existence that way? It's ludicrous thinking. If we can hypothesize how things came to be and we find evidence along the way that might be the answer, it's a darn sight more reasonable than magic.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:23 pm

snowyflake wrote:

“And”… proof remains nonexistent, direct evidence remains nonexistent.
No one said anything about proof! We are talking about evidence…

So am I correctly inferring that you are compellingly implying that no proof of the eye’s macro-evolution exists? If so, thank you for your honesty.

snowyflake wrote:
… and what it suggests.

A highly cautious, non-definitive word often used when scientists don’t know.

snowyflake wrote:
If I'm going to wonder about the world, I want it to be plausible answers.

As do I, and I find the suggestion that the eye macro-evolved (1) not an answer, but a suggestion, and (2) a highly implausible suggestion.

by Shirina Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:23 pm

It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.

It really takes some heavy duty indoctrination for anyone to believe that natural selection and evolution is implausible while believing on faith that a supernatural tribal god speaking it all into existence with a magic word IS a plausible answer.

by Guest Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:34 pm

RockOnBrother wrote:
It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.

Shirina wrote:
It really takes some heavy duty indoctrination for anyone to believe that natural selection and evolution is implausible…

How would you know that “[it] really takes some heavy duty indoctrination for [me] to believe that natural selection and evolution [are] implausible” as an answer and/or explanation for the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance? The only plausible explanation for your unexplained knowledge of my mind’s workings is that you possess omniscience.

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:37 pm

As do I, and I find the suggestion that the eye macro-evolved (1) not an answer, but a suggestion, and (2) a highly implausible suggestion.

I would like you to imagine the careful study of scientific evidence. The massive amount of evidence in the geological, biological, paleontological, biochemical, fossil record by experts in their fields. Not just one or two experts but 1000's of experts around the world carefully piecing together the evidence of Darwin's elegant theory of evolution using the scientific method and the null hypothesis, arguably the most rigid method of uncovering scientific facts with a high percentage of confidence.

Then I want you to imagine an invisible sentient spirit wafting through the universe for 13.7 billion years who then decides to create the heavens and the earth in 7 days. Who creates light before he created the sun. Who created water above the earth. And so poof, a world appears. No reason. Just there. Then he decides to make mud pies one day and he made a man.

Rock, it sounds like a cartoon.

by Shirina Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:40 pm

The only plausible explanation for your unexplained knowledge of my mind’s workings is that you possess omniscience.

I'm not fooled, Rock. Every creation vs. evolution debate has been framed as a binary choice - either it is evolution or it was God. Right now, there is no third alternative, and I doubt very much that you're postulating a third alternative by claiming evolution is "implausible." But, just in case you are, you're more than welcome to explain what that third alternative is.

Otherwise, it stands to reason (no omniscience needed) that, by denouncing evolution as implausible, the only other choice, a supernatural tribal god poofing everything into existence with maigc, IS plausible. Because that IS what you believe, is it not? Why else would you harp on Genesis 1:1 so much?

by snowyflake Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:44 pm

We know evolution is a fact because of DNA which can be traced to common ancestors. Just because there are gaps in our knowledge does not take anything away from the evidence we already have. The evidence is very strong and it will only be a matter of time before those are solved and other problems present themselves. That's science. Ever-changing and building on the previous foundations of our knowledge. Nothing has been presented ever that discounts evolution entirely. Nothing.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:02 pm

So am I correctly inferring that you are compellingly implying that no proof of the eye’s macro-evolution exists? If so, thank you for your honesty.

Science does not deal in proof, how many times do you have to be told something ?

Evolution is an evidence based fact, the theory is considered a fact because of the overwhelming evidence that " TESTS " the theory.

Try and focus Texas, we do not need evidence of eye macro evolution, we have evidence of macro-evolution of all things with eyes. Get out of that head lock baby, call a lawyer or just repeat Genesis 1:1 ad infinitum. What a Face

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:13 pm

Evolution is seemingly implausible as a scientific theory and yet no creationist has been bold enough to demonstrate this in any scientific manner, there has been not one scientific objection to the implausible theory of common ancestry.

In other words the implausible theory has no evidence that they can dispute and there is no evidence that contradicts the implausible theory.

Now I do not have to be omniscient to rationally conclude on the balance of evidence, the theory is not implausible as some internet loonball asserts.

Do these nutters think their words are as inerrant as God's, if they say it then it must be true, its just delusional thinking.

by Tosh Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:24 pm

Texas is still barking up the pseudo science tree, still trying to dictate what constitutes as evidence or proof as he likes to call it, still insisting we must be able to observe macro-evolution, or replicate it, if not then in his deluded mind its not knowledge.

Unfortunately the nature of science renders this criteria as implausible, and this implausible idea has been rejected by science.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:15 am

Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation.[1] Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.

This is the crux of the creationist argument, they insist on empirical evidence or its just another idea like Genesis.

I found it odd a mind predisposed to faith, can also be intent on empiricism, what a bizarre combination, makes you wonder about their reasoning faculties and their motivation.

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:11 am

RockOnBrother wrote:
It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.

Shirina wrote:
It really takes some heavy duty indoctrination for anyone to believe that natural selection and evolution is implausible…

RockOnBrother wrote:
How would you know that “[it] really takes some heavy duty indoctrination for [me] to believe that natural selection and evolution [are] implausible” as an answer and/or explanation for the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance? The only plausible explanation for your unexplained knowledge of my mind’s workings is that you possess omniscience.

Shirina wrote:
I'm not fooled, Rock.

I am not asking if you are “fooled.”

Shirina wrote:
Every creation vs. evolution debate…

Red herring. I am neither mentioning “creation” nor entering into a “debate.”

Shirina wrote:
… claiming evolution is "implausible."

Red herring. I am not “claiming” anything; I am stating, “It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.”

Shirina wrote:
… denouncing evolution as implausible…

Red herring. I am not “denouncing” anything; I am stating, “It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.”

Shirina wrote:
Because that IS what you believe, is it not?

You are asking and answering your own questions as to what I believe, in so doing implying omniscience. I am asking this question: Are you omniscient?

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:22 am

snowyflake wrote:
We know evolution is a fact because of DNA which can be traced to common ancestors.

I do not know that macro-evolution of the eye is a fact; I find macro-evolution an implausible explanation for the sudden Cambrian appearance of the eye.

Your use of “know” presumes scientific certainty for something that lacks scientific certainty. The authors of the various references you’ve provided use far more cautionary language.

by Shirina Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:10 am

I am not asking if you are “fooled.”

I didn't ask whether you asked. I'm stating, "I'm not fooled." And I'm still not. (Isn't this game fun?!)

Red herring. I am neither mentioning “creation” nor entering into a “debate.”

Are you suggesting there is a third alternative? Otherwise, "creation" was implicit by claiming evolution was implausible. Are you admitting both explanations are implausible?

Red herring. I am not “claiming” anything; I am stating, “It’s a flawed answer; it’s an implausible answer.”

I had a professor like you once for a history course called The US Since 1945. I wrote a paper on the beginnings of the Cold War, and this professor marked up my writing with so much red ink that I thought he cut himself and bled all over it. I remember vividly how I had written, "President Truman stated ..." and the professor had crossed out the word "stated" and wrote above it "commented." I was like ... WTF? My entire paper was marked up with so many of those kinds of bullshit semantic wordplays that I complained to the department chair saying I was being deliberately undermined academically by this professor handing me bad grades for no justifiable reason. The chairman agreed and let me withdraw from the course halfway through the semester with the course being expunged from my record.

You're playing the same game, Rock, which is why I'm not fooled. I also know that this kind of response is NOT scholarship else the department chair would have simply told me to suck it up. Like you, this professor failed to confront or comment upon my overall premise, my theories, or my facts. Instead, he focused on semantics, splitting more hairs in one day than a cosmotologist splits in an entire career. What this tells me, as it told my department chair, is that this professor didn't like something I said in my paper but couldn't find actual academic fault with it - so to avoid giving me a good grade for a position he didn't like, he simply went wild with the red pen. Yeah, that reminds me of someone else I know ....

You are asking and answering your own questions as to what I believe, in so doing implying omniscience.

So you don't believe in creation?

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:07 am

Shirina wrote:
I'm stating, "I'm not fooled."

Why? Since I am not stating that you are fooled, whose statement are you refuting?

Shirina wrote:
Are you suggesting there is a third alternative?

I am “suggesting” nothing; I am stating that macro-evolution is an implausible explanation for the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

Shirina wrote:
Otherwise, "creation" was implicit…

Red herring. In this series of posts, I have neither stated nor implied anything regarding “creation.” If you find red herring tasty, you are free to present it for consumption as you so desire; as for me, I’ll stick with my preferred cod (in fish and chips) and catfish.

Shirina wrote:
… by claiming evolution was implausible.

I am “claiming” nothing; I am stating that macro-evolution is an implausible explanation for the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

Shirina wrote:
Are you admitting both explanations are implausible?

I am “admitting” nothing; I am stating that macro-evolution is an implausible explanation for the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

Shirina wrote:
You're playing the same game, Rock…

I am “playing” nothing; I am stating that macro-evolution is an implausible explanation for the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

Shirina wrote:
You are asking and answering your own questions as to what I believe, in so doing implying omniscience.
So you don't believe in creation?

You’ve already asked and answered your own question, thus implying your own omniscience, an attribute I shall not implicitly dispute by providing an answer for that which, via your own omniscience, you already know.

by snowyflake Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:58 am

I do not know that macro-evolution of the eye is a fact; I find macro-evolution an implausible explanation for the sudden Cambrian appearance of the eye.

And? So because there are problems with the theory even though there is evidence that suggests a more plausible answer than magic, you still choose magic?

Your use of “know” presumes scientific certainty for something that lacks scientific certainty. The authors of the various references you’ve provided use far more cautionary language.

There is scientific certainty in the DNA record, Rock. There may not be scientific certainty for every single aspect of evolution but there are hypotheses and evidence. But the DNA record of all living things is a certainty.

I am happy to use cautionary language when the evidence isn't certain. Your personal use of the word 'know' when it comes to God's existence isn't cautionary in the slightest and based on NO evidence whatsoever. You handily dance out of the debate by saying that you cannot prove or even provide evidence of his existence because you are not omniscient yet you still 'know' he exists. That's not very cautionary language.

Cautionary language should apply when the evidence is not certain. I would thank you to be honest in this regard as well. You cannot 'know' God's existence any more than I can have scientific certainty of all aspects of evolutionary theory.

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:25 am

snowyflake wrote:
I do not know that macro-evolution of the eye is a fact; I find macro-evolution an implausible explanation for the sudden Cambrian appearance of the eye.
And?

“And” is nonexistent in my statement, repeated here as an independent sentence: “”

snowyflake wrote:
So because there are problems with the theory even though there is evidence that suggests a more plausible answer than magic….

If you can find and quote here anything that I have posted here regarding any “magic” other than the conjurer’s arts which I learned as a junior high school student, I’ll be happy to discuss what I have posted.

snowyflake wrote:
… you still choose magic?

The magic I have chosen is/are the conjuror’s arts. If you ever get here and my fingers are still working, I may still be able to restore a cut rope and make cards do a few unexplained things.

snowyflake wrote:
Your use of “know” presumes scientific certainty for something that lacks scientific certainty. The authors of the various references you’ve provided use far more cautionary language.
There is scientific certainty in the DNA record, Rock.

The DNA records, from what I have come to know, convincingly establish relatedness between species across space and time.

Ironically for you, this relatedness is exactly what I would expect amongst species designed by a designer. I have from time to time needed to create lists of sources for scholarly works using various styles. Once I designed templates for each type of source, I reused those templates over and over by simply inserting the necessary information in the already created “slots.” As I watch land animals in documentaries, remote in hand from the comfort of my armchair, it doesn’t take long to see that big land predators almost always have four limbs. Never six, only occasionally two (maybe), never an odd number, and only with snakes zero. So what is it about four limbs? In a far more profound way than my templates, four limbs works. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

The presence of DNA templates is as non-indicative as the presence of my source templates; in fact, as my templates are evidence of a designer, me, DNA templates could conceivably be evidence of a designer, whoever.

snowyflake wrote:
There may not be scientific certainty for every single aspect of evolution but there are hypotheses and evidence. But the DNA record of all living things is a certainty.

“[May] not be” is too “soft”; there is not scientific certainty for every aspect of macro-evolution No hypothesis has as yet imparted plausibility to the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance; no evidence has as yet imparted plausibility to the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

snowyflake wrote:
I am happy to use cautionary language when the evidence isn't certain.

I believe that you should do so when speaking of the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:13 am

Yep, and the verbal diarrhea just continues to flow, all of it containing no scientific objections to macro-evolution, just denials in multifarious forms.

Texas takes great delight in finding new ways to deny scientific conclusions but always forgets to support his denials, and if he mentions scholarly articles one more time I am going to bust a gut laughing, his delusions have no bounds.

No hypothesis has as yet imparted plausibility to the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance; no evidence has as yet imparted plausibility to the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

Your assertions are worth diddly squat in the real debate in the real world, you and your creationist wackos plough a lone furrow of denial, meanwhile the science community considers common ancestry an evidence based fact, this to any sane person imparts plausibility to both the evidence for macro-evolution and the theory.

I have always believed you are uninterested in a genuine debate on evolution, your repetitive dross is glorified spamming and you make pseudo-scientific pronouncements that are unscientific and unsupported by any science academy.
You accept evolution as plausible but you consider the idea of macro-evolution implausible, any chance of you demonstrating its implausibility in a scholarly fashion by supplying the biochemical data that makes it so ? BUT YOU WONT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.

In a debate on common ancestry, you better come up with a better tactic than simply denying the evidence and denying it is an evidence based fact.

As for your scientific deduction that the common structure of DNA could infer a designer, your ignorance of scholarship shines through time and time again. ALL evidence must fit the hypothesis, and unfortunately for your hypothesis all the evidence does not, all the evidence supports common ancestry. You cannot squeeze the fossil record, transitional fossils, atavism and vestigial organs into your species designer hypothesis, where do we put this evidence MR SCHOLAR ?

Where do we put our fused chromosome 2 into your species designer hypothesis, where do we put limbs on whales/dolphins in your species designer hypothesis ?

Like a man cutting up a jigsaw with scissors you try to just snip out the evidence that blows your species designer hypothesis out of the primordial soup.

What I find truly amazing is the scale of your delusion in relation to your intelligence, I don't know what circles you mix in my friend but in the real word your arguments scream ignorance. Why you believe your intelligence and reasoning outweighs every science academy in the world,and 99.9% of all biologists and geneticists is a wonder of nature.

Look my friend, you are just too thick to get it, accept this and be a creationist on blind faith, stop trying to justify your mumbo jumbo with fake science and fake scholarship.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:00 am

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science. —National Academy of Sciences.

A species designer explanation has no empirical evidence to support it, and all the empirical evidence contradicts it, including random genetic variation( micro-evolution) and natural selection. It is implausible to suggest a designer creates a species that mutates randomly, unless God is a blind watchmaker, maybe it explains why 90% of the species he designed are now extinct....LMAO.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:11 am

I NOTICED IN A DISCUSSION WITH SHIRINA HOW TEXAS TRIES TO PRETEND HIS OBJECTIONS TO COMMON ANCESTRY ARE NOT RELIGIOUS BASED BUT PURELY SCIENTIFIC !!

Now that is a full scale delusion that deserves mockery and derision.

Strange how the only objectors to common ancestry just happen to be creationist nutters mostly from the Bible Belt in the United States of Jesus.

Take these bampots out of their cultural asylum and they would be the laughing stock in any high school playground, in Europe we teach our kids real science.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:35 am

What I find so sweetly ironic, is the biggest critics of creationists are the mainstream faiths, I saw a documentary the other night on how creationism has made a mockery of Christianity, it has fueled an industry of comedians that have tarnished Christianity as a whole.

Creationists take real offense to my disrespectful ribbing, but I am only the tip of the iceberg, their backward beliefs invite derision and mockery, they are in effect bringing religion into disrepute....and that suits me fine, they are doing my job for me.

Creationists are creating more atheists than science ever could, its just perfect irony.

by snowyflake Thu Apr 04, 2013 7:31 pm

“And” is nonexistent in my statement, repeated here as an independent sentence: “”

That was unneccessary.

If you can find and quote here anything that I have posted here regarding any “magic” other than the conjurer’s arts which I learned as a junior high school student, I’ll be happy to discuss what I have posted.

Genesis 1:1 and the subsequent manuscript. You didn't use the word magic yourself, Rock, but magic is what you believe.

The magic I have chosen is/are the conjuror’s arts. If you ever get here and my fingers are still working, I may still be able to restore a cut rope and make cards do a few unexplained things.

Cool. My husband performs magic as well. He's very good. Smile

But he doesn't perform the kind of magic that you believe God performs.

Your use of “know” presumes scientific certainty for something that lacks scientific certainty. The authors of the various references you’ve provided use far more cautionary language.

Your use of the word 'know' presumes certainty of the existence of God for something that lacks certainty.

The DNA records, from what I have come to know, convincingly establish relatedness between species across space and time.

Yes. The DNA record is like a diary that you can follow back through time and pinpoint when mutations occurred and what those mutations did to improve survival for that species.

Ironically for you, this relatedness is exactly what I would expect amongst species designed by a designer.

Evidence please?

I have from time to time needed to create lists of sources for scholarly works using various styles. Once I designed templates for each type of source, I reused those templates over and over by simply inserting the necessary information in the already created “slots.” As I watch land animals in documentaries, remote in hand from the comfort of my armchair, it doesn’t take long to see that big land predators almost always have four limbs. Never six, only occasionally two (maybe), never an odd number, and only with snakes zero. So what is it about four limbs? In a far more profound way than my templates, four limbs works. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

I am unsure of the relevance of this statement.

The presence of DNA templates is as non-indicative as the presence of my source templates; in fact, as my templates are evidence of a designer, me, DNA templates could conceivably be evidence of a designer, whoever.

I don't know what this means either. DNA is not a template. It is inheritable data that is in every living cell that is passed on to offspring. Under the influence of environmental pressures, DNA may mutate and cause some genes to be detrimental or beneficial. There is no evidence that a designer had any influence. If you know something I don't please present it.

“[May] not be” is too “soft”; there is not scientific certainty for every aspect of macro-evolution No hypothesis has as yet imparted plausibility to the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance; no evidence has as yet imparted plausibility to the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

There may not be scientific certainty for every aspect of macro-evolution. I didn't make any claims regarding macro-evolution of the eye in the Cambrian period.

I believe that you should do so when speaking of the proposition that macro-evolution caused the eye’s sudden Cambrian appearance.

I believe that you should do so when making certainty claims about the existence or reality of God.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 8:34 pm

Snowy,

This is both funny and informative, you have my permission to ram It down a certain chap from Texas throat:

How can DNA provide evidence of evolution? I cant find anything.

Well, part of the reason you can't find anything is that Creationists have been very busy posting deceitful and truly BAD information on the Internet. For example, typing "DNA evidence evolution", produces as the first two links, "All About Creation.org" and "Good News Magazine .org" ... the first of which is a page entitled "DNA Evidence for Evolution" but is exactly the *OPPOSITE* ... it is an attack on that evidence! (An attack using truly BAD science such as the infamously bogus "no new information" argument.) This is not providing information, this is outright *deceit*.

DNA provides *fantastic* evidence of evolution ... or more correctly, common ancestry between living species. It is even better evidence than fossils. In fact, if we had never discovered a single fossil, the evidence from DNA alone is a slam-dunk for evolution (common ancestry).

First, let's review what DNA is (as I don't know if you've learned this yet.) DNA is like the "alphabet" in which information is stored in cells. DNA is a really long molecule that is basically a chain of small molecules. These smaller molecules are called "bases" or "nucleotides", but the name doesn't matter that much ... you can think of them as "letters" in the alphabet. There are four letters ... A, G, C, and T (they stand for longer names, but calling them "letters" is fine for this discussion). So the special *sequence* of these letters is like the "spelling".

The first piece of evidence of common ancestry of *all* life forms is that the "spelling rules" are all the same for all life forms that we have ever discovered. First, life forms use "right-handed DNA" (that spirals to the right), even though "left-handed DNA" would work just as well. Second, there's no reason that GAC always means "leucine", never "tryptophan" ... but it does, for all organisms on the planet. The same "spelling rules" are strong evidence of common ancestry (because offspring cannot inherit different rules than their parents use).

But another reason DNA is such *fantastic* evidence of common ancestry between any two species, is that the unique "spelling errors" are like *markers* that show a piece of DNA shared by two species that came from a common ancestor. For example, if two people in your class turned in an essay that contained a paragraph that was word-for-word identical ... then that would be evidence that one of you copied from the other ... but if you both had the same spelling error "evolusion" ... then the teacher could do a search on the Internet and find that you both copied the paragraph from the same web page.

In exactly the same way, if humans and chimps have the same letter-for-letter "spelling" that defines the insulin protein ... a "spelling" that is slightly different in gorillas, then that is a tiny piece of evidence that humans and chimps inherited that "spelling" from a common ancestor that is not shared by gorillas. If there are a *lot* of these unique "spelling" markers, then that starts to provide a *lot* of evidence of that common ancestry. But when we find (as we have) that as much as 98.8% of our DNA is *letter-for-letter* identical with chimps, but only 98.6% identical with gorillas, and 97.6% identical with orangutans ... then this is powerful evidence that we are much more closely *genetically* related to chimps than we are to gorillas, and more *genetically* related to gorillas than we are to orangutans, etc.

Another way to put it is that we can do this kind of DNA comparison between any two humans on the planet and determine how genetically related they are to each other ... are they separated by 10 generations or 30. But the same exact DNA comparison works for any two *species* ... humans and chimps ... humans and gorillas ... chimps and gorillas ... chimps and squirrels ... chimps and earthworms ... chimps and daffodils ... etc. And the pattern of "relatedness" always makes sense (we don't find any "spelling" errors common to chimps and daffodils that are not also shared by chimps and gorillas). This is evidence that *all* species are related by an ever decreasing common ancestor.

Finally, these common "spelling errors" are not always related to common *function*. Only about 2% of DNA is actually related to *function* (proteins) ... as much as 98% has no function at all. (This is sometimes called "junk DNA" ... because it is DNA that seems to be just passed along by inheritance even though it serves no function for the organism ... like junk in your garage that keeps getting moved as you move from house to house ... but biologists don't find that term particularly helpful.) Just the very presence of so much non-coding DNA is evidence of evolution ... *millions* of years of accumulated DNA being passed on just because that's how cells reproduce, long after the DNA has lost its purpose).

But the fact that this non-coding DNA also contains these "spelling error" markers, just nails the evidence even harder. They cannot be written off as "necessary" for a common function.

THIS IS WHY THE GLOBAL NETWORK OF SCIENCE ACADEMIES STATE:

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

by snowyflake Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:16 pm

Thanks for that Tosh. I hope your efforts are appreciated by others. Smile

But when we find (as we have) that as much as 98.8% of our DNA is *letter-for-letter* identical with chimps, but only 98.6% identical with gorillas, and 97.6% identical with orangutans ... then this is powerful evidence that we are much more closely *genetically* related to chimps than we are to gorillas, and more *genetically* related to gorillas than we are to orangutans, etc.

Hey Tosh, do you think ginger people are closely related to orangutans? Smile

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:01 pm

Hey Tosh, do you think ginger people are closely related to orangutans? Smile

Nope but I do think it has something to do with Neanderthals, they were short, barrel-chested, red haired with very white skin pigment for the cold, and very aggressive( anti-social).

Sounds like the Celtic-Norse race to me, the Neanderthals were driven North and the survivors were assimilated into the human population, they possessed the best genes for surviving in cold, harsh environments and passed them on to freakin me !!!!!!!

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:04 pm

p.s. No wonder the Romans gave up with us and built a wall to keep us in.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:11 pm

I also believe the " warrior or sociopath " gene comes from Neanderthals, it was passed onto the Celts and Norse who interbred throughout Europe by raping and pillaging.

I bet if they did a comparison between Scots and Asians or Africans, we would have a far higher rate of sociopathy.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:16 pm

I am on a roll, I also believe it was Northern people who colonized the Americas some 15,000 years ago,a mere 10,000 years after Neanderthal became extinct.

The indigenous natives of the Americas were a right blood thirsty lot, you have to be sociopathic to choose HUMAN sacrifice as a token to the Gods.

by snowyflake Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:20 pm

For Rock:

Contrary to claims by creationists, macro and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes on different time scales.[4][1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:21 pm

As for the native Americans, they were no better, I watched a documentary with John Wayne and these savages got " power " stealing your soul but only after they tortured you !!!

The only pure humans are the Asians, Africans and Aborigines, so genetically Texas is a member of the Aryan race. :affraid:

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:30 pm

If hunter-gatherers believed one got more powerful by killing another human and stealing their soul, this would mean spirit belief probably caused conflict even way back then. Sociopaths torture because they feed off the fear.

It seems religion even in its most primitive form caused violence and did nothing to moralize the sociopaths amongst us.

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:55 pm

So, back to the story, we had Darwinian selection of sociopaths surviving as the fittest throughout Europe right up to 10,000 bce. Generations of the fittest conquering and passing on their genes, the age of the sociopath, a hybrid of neanderthal and human, brutal savages......and then.

Farming, the domestication of animals and urbanisation, being a sociopath was no longer such a huge survival advantage, in fact it was a disadvantage.
The age of cooperation and conduct had begun, the best sociopaths survived and adapted, they called them Kings or Leaders, sociopaths may be evil but they are very clever.

As each generation and each war passed more cooperators survived than sociopaths, and now its down to about 15% of the population, the last of the Neanderthals are the elite, the illuminatti, the rulers of the western world.

Now you know why our history is full of sociopathic brutality......and along came Jesus, an African who had no warrior gene.

by Guest Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:43 pm

Macroevolution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists^a alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies^b and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur.^b^[13] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents,^c evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.^d^[14] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is not supported by the scientific community.^e

Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.^f^[6][16] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity.^g Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.^h^[18]

Describing the fundamental similarity between Macro and Microevolution in his authoritative textbook "Evolutionary Biology," biologist Douglas Futuyma writes,

“One of the most important tenets of the theory forgedⁱ…”
— Douglas Futuyma, "Evolutionary Biology" (1998), pp.477-8[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro-evolution

Comments and observations about the quoted text.

The “ist’s” that identify me are (1) once-upon-a-long-time-ago nascent physicist, (2) armchair animal behaviorist, (3) social scientist, and (4) Texas bar-b-que eatist.
There is a huge and significant difference between “observed in field and laboratory studies” and “believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur.”
I am not one of the “anti-evolution movement proponents.”
When was it observed, where was it observed, and what specifically was observed?
I don’t care what is or isn’t “supported by the scientific community”; I don’t care what is or isn’t supported (or rejected) by any “community. I care what is. Steady State was accepted by the astrophysicist and astronomer communities, and a knighted, once-renowned physicist went to his grave holding on to this belief; his stature didn’t change one whit the data that discredits Steady State.
”Show me the money”, show me the video.
Steady State was the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the “origin” of the universe.
Steady State was not disputed within the scientific community.
The phrase “tenets of the theory forged” differs significantly from the phrase “truths of nature discovered.”

by Tosh Thu Apr 04, 2013 11:56 pm

Steady state model was not supported by empirical evidence, steady state had not been observed and was not an accepted evidence based fact, that was left to Hubble, the evidence for common ancestry is empirical ,despite your wacko claims. For evolution to be wrong a dozen scientific disciplines all have to be ALL wrong.

Science does not need to observe macro-evolution, it has empirical evidence that supports the theory.

I don't care what you think of the scientific community with your fake scholarship, you don't determine scientific methods and they do, and you still have not provided one scientific objection to common ancestry.

Just regurgitating the same shit in different formats don't mean nothing.

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:37 am

There is a huge and significant difference between “observed in field and laboratory studies” and “believed FROM the overwhelming evidence to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur.”

No there is not, you intentionally missed out the important bit, you intellectual fraud.

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:45 am

observed in field and laboratory studies”

Yep, all of the evidence is empirical, unless you think geologists, paleontologists, biologists and geneticists just make shit up like you.

I think all the evidence has been observed in the field and studied in laboratories, we really do not need to wait 10 million years to observe and study macro-evolution to know it takes place, we have past and present examples plus the common genetic structure and a proven process that has no biochemical obstacles to species change.

Its a slam dunk if you are a scholar.

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:56 am

I would like to know how many people read my posts, go on flatter me. flower

by Tosh Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:57 am

No rush.

by Sponsored content