Jump to content


Photo

Evolutionists And Understanding The Scientific Method


  • Please log in to reply
249 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,943 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 10 February 2016 - 09:34 PM

Whilst I was driving to the public library I was wondering about the aforementioned title to this thread. I was thinking about how evolutionists can claim to understand science and how it operates and yet still claim that evolution is "scientific"?

Considering that since the (assumed) evolution of man is a PAST event, and that the past cannot be experimented on then it would seem that such assumptions (read beliefs) are thus NOT scientific....

This, to me, demonstrates a lack of understanding with how science operates (aka the scientific method)... Which in itself is ironic considering how many evolutionists deem themselves the intelligentsia of the universe.


Would it be possible that the posing of many evolutionists as the 'intelligentsia of the universe' be an attempt to cover their inability to understand science? Is it all just a confidence trick?
  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#2 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:30 AM

Gilbo, you echo my thoughts.

 

At the risk of being a one-trick pony here, ever since I returned to this board after years of absence my main emphasis has been on getting evos here to address the scientific method issues you just posted about.

 

At one point, based on my experience with evos in the past, I mentioned that some evos admit they cannot, do not, or don't need to use the scientific method in their proof of the theory of evolution. Of course I came under a great deal of ridicule, and even got called a liar for that statement.

 

The funny thing is that when I turned the challenge against them and asked the evos to go ahead and show how the theory of evolution can be proven using the scientific method it was met with absolute, utter, sheer silence.

 

 

Would it be possible that the posing of many evolutionists as the 'intelligentsia of the universe' be an attempt to cover their inability to understand science? Is it all just a confidence trick?

 

So, to answer your question: I do not underestimate the intelligence of those whose scientific knowledge far exceeds my own. But, there's more to intelligence than just being a mindless robot parroting "scientific" information. I've found that one's worldview plays a huge part in how one uses one's intelligence to interpret what they know.

 

What we have discovered by my fruitless quest to get a response to my scientific method challenge is that there is a point beyond which evos simply cannot go because to do so would be to show the world that their belief in evolution is based on pure faith and not science.

 

They really only have two choices: Prove the theory of evolution using the scientific method, or admit that the scientific method does not apply to the theory of evolution (and thus is not scientific).

 

It turns out, for the evos on this forum anyway, that they'd rather cower down and debate minutia than put everything on the line and answer this important, simple question.

 

So, no, I don't believe it is a confidence trick. I believe they are simply afraid to be honest. It's part and parcel of their materialistic, Godless worldview.

 

Sorry about my response. Based on recent history here, it will probably be the kiss of death for this topic. :)


  • gilbo12345 likes this

#3 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 13 February 2016 - 02:08 PM

Considering that since the (assumed) evolution of man is a PAST event, and that the past cannot be experimented on then it would seem that such assumptions (read beliefs) are thus NOT scientific....

 

A past event is not exempt from scientific investigation; both historical and operational science are, science. 

 

While we can't go into a magical time machine and do a physical experiment in the past, we can observe the effects of the past and make predictions and do tests on what we ought observe given a hypothesis/theory about a past event. Recall that science is not interested in "proof", but supporting evidence. 

 

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24. Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2. 



#4 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 13 February 2016 - 02:20 PM

 

 

Goku: I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24

 RED = question-begging-epithet, all of the evidence shows humanity is unique, and is evidence therefore that we are made in God's image.

 

 

 

Goku: Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2. 

 

Think about what you are saying. You are predicting that if I find X chromosomes in an ant, and X amount in a banana, and look for evidence of inactive telomeres, then essentially the ant had a common ancestor with the banana.

 

Goku, don't you know that my pet ant I named Goku-Fjuri, is missing a yellow skin,  like the rest of the bananas? :rotfl3:

 

:smashfreak: 

 

Though I do appreciate that you are claiming that historical/forensics can be categorized as "science" technically speaking as science can deal in reconstruction. Perhaps there is room for discussion/concession, there. (by the way you should know the telomere-baloney has been debunked for some time, there is evidence that allows us to also say that it may well have jack squat to do with evolution)

 

You need to think more critically of evolution-info, think about it, logically speaking the fact humans have 23 chromos and all apes have 24, is evidence we are not apes, as it is evidence of DIFFERENCE between apes and humans. So to take evidence that suggests we were never apes and say it somehow favours an ape-ancestry is really not a very smart argument when you think about it. The fact is an evolutionary prediction would be that we have 24. It is easy to say "evo would have predicted this" when you state it after the fact. (posteriori) Fact is we all know that evolution would have ideally predicted that humans had the same amount of chromos.



#5 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:06 PM

Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2. 

 

Goku-the-ape, see this is what I mean about not correctly using the scientific method to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

 

If I may paraphrase what you are saying in the quote:

 

"We believe that evolution is true, therefore evidence of chromosomal fusion which we believe occurred via the evolutionary process must have happened via evolution. Therefore we conclude that the theory of evolution is true and validates our belief that man and apes arose from a common ancestor via evolution."

 

That's so circular and non-scientific, it's actually hilarious.

 

To put it in the proper scientific method perspective you should word it like this:

 

"We see evidence of chromosome 2 fusion in humans that gives humans 23 pairs. We also see no chromosome 2 fusion in apes, giving them 24 pairs. What possible explanation is there for the discrepancy between human and ape chromosomes?"

 

I guarantee you that an honest, objective scientific methodological approach to the question when asked correctly like that will not lead to the absolute determination of evolution as fact. But it will instead open the door wide open to a consideration from other than a materialistic-only mindset.

 

And, that's the rub. Materialistic-only scientists have been, are, and will always be working under the handicap of never, ever finding the truth of the matter because they are doing science with half their brains tied behind their backs.

 

Once again, Goku-the-ape, it all comes down to worldview. Your bias simply cannot let you accept any non-evolution-based answer to a correctly worded, objectively-asked scientific question.



#6 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:54 PM

Gilbo, you echo my thoughts.
 
At the risk of being a one-trick pony here, ever since I returned to this board after years of absence my main emphasis has been on getting evos here to address the scientific method issues you just posted about.
 
At one point, based on my experience with evos in the past, I mentioned that some evos admit they cannot, do not, or don't need to use the scientific method in their proof of the theory of evolution. Of course I came under a great deal of ridicule, and even got called a liar for that statement.

I haven't seen any ridicule in that thread. As for calling you a liar: that was me. But the real phrase was: until you provide evidence for the statements you make I will call you a liar. No evidence has been provided. The moment you provide evidence, like alink, I will humbly apologise. But until so long I call you a liar.

#7 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:58 PM

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24.

 RED = question-begging-epithet, all of the evidence shows humanity is unique, and is evidence therefore that we are made in God's image.

All species are unique. So humans are not special, or all species are special. Are all species made in god's image?

#8 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 February 2016 - 09:58 PM

 

 

Though I do appreciate that you are claiming that historical/forensics can be categorized as "science" technically speaking as science can deal in reconstruction. Perhaps there is room for discussion/concession, there.

 

 

 

No No No sir; and there's absolutely "No Room" for discussion and absolutely "No Room" for concession.  How on Earth can you even formulate a Formal Scientific Hypothesis with Historical/Forensics.... then TEST IT??  You don't know....what you don't know.

 

Are you saying something is Science without Scientific Hypotheses?  :huh:

 

In fact, you skipped the First Step of the Scientific Method: Observe a Phenomenon...

 

"No phenomenon is a phenomenon unless it is an observed phenomenon."
Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize, Physics), as quoted in; Science and Ultimate Reality. Quantum Theory, Cosmology and Complexity: Cambridge University Press, p. 209

 

You Observe "Nouns"/end results.  

 

And it's certainly not "Conjure a Phenomenon"!  It's  NOT just "OBSERVE" as in Observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action/Verb Tense.  And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off" event...if so, How can you TEST it?

 
If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize Observations of "Nouns", this is what you're reduced to (an example)...
 
I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis.......? .....
 
How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And lol, you have an Invalid "Theory" in the Hypothesis.
 
OK what's the TEST? Post the Formal Scientific Hypothesis, then please elucidate...
The Independent Variable and what are you measuring (Dependent Variable) ?
 
"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations."
http://www.cod.edu/p...her/scimeth.htm
 
OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:
 
Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations? THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...
 
[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic)--- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.
 
Viola, A Tree! The Independent Variable here is YOUR EYELIDS !!  
 
It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"--- of Nouns!

 

It's a bastardization of Science, Plain and Simple.  Crocheting is more Scientific than Historical/Forensics. 

 

 

I'm actually quite shocked you posted this mike.

 

It is easy to say "evo would have predicted this"

 

 

1.  It's also Incoherent because "evolution" is not an entity much less a "Scientific Theory".

 

and the final death blow, as if we needed it (relating to The Scientific Method above)...

 

2.  “Evolution is not a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only".

Carol V. Ward (paleoanthropologist) University of Missouri; Experts Tackle Questions of How Humans will Evolve; Scientific American, Vol 311, Issue 3; 19 August 2014


#9 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 679 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 65
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 13 February 2016 - 10:10 PM

I haven't seen any ridicule in that thread. As for calling you a liar: that was me. But the real phrase was: until you provide evidence for the statements you make I will call you a liar. No evidence has been provided. The moment you provide evidence, like alink, I will humbly apologise. But until so long I call you a liar.

 

Driewerf, you are either extremely thick, or are a willful time-waster.

 

But for the sake of anybody new reading this topic I'll point out, yet again, that I can't call up posts from back when I used to be on this forum, roughly 2005 to 2010, because they have all been deleted in a past upgrade of the forum software.

 

Just in case you are hard of hearing, here it is again:

 

The posts that you require me to produce, are not available on this board anymore. Got it!?

 

So, don't use that lame accusation again, or you risk being warned as a time-waster.

 

However, as I have been unable to access past threads here, I googled a number of quotes from evos saying essentially what you called me a liar about. And also pulled a quote from someone in the very same thread saying basically the thing that you called me a liar about.

 

If you can't accept that, and if you continue in the same vein, then you'll find yourself dealing with a moderator.

 

All that aside, it's curious that I find you supremely resistant in accepting my challenge that would truly prove me a liar. If I lied claiming that evos believe they can prove the theory of evolution without needing to use the scientific method, then you should be eager to do just that thing. So far, my challenge has been met with a deafening silence.

 

I, and virtually everybody else here, take that as validation of my original statement, and refutation of your accusation that I am a liar.



#10 Enoch 2021

Enoch 2021

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,271 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:The WORD of GOD. Biochemistry, Microbiology, Physics, Genetics

    Military(ret.)
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 13 February 2016 - 10:18 PM

A past event is not exempt from scientific investigation; both historical and operational science are, science. 

 

 

Hogwash!  It's an Equivocation Fallacy.

 

Do you even know what the Scientific Method is??

 

Post a For Instance, I triple dog dare ya...?

 

While we can't go into a magical time machine and do a physical experiment in the past, we can observe the effects of the past and make predictions and do tests on what we ought observe given a hypothesis/theory about a past event.

 

 

Baloney.  I have 3 Torch Marks on my Garage Wall....

 

1. What's The Hypothesis....?

 

2. What's the TEST....?

 

3. What's the Prediction...?

 

My "theory": Invisible Fire Breathing Dragons Exist.  Disprove it...?

 

 

Recall that science is not interested in "proof", but supporting evidence. 

 

 

Baloney!

 

Are you saying these aren't "PROVEN"...

 

a. Unless it is hindered "Specifically", in "Nature"....Heat Flows from Hot to Cold (Always!), Energy Concentrated to Dispersed (Always!), High Pressure to Low Pressure (Always!)
b. Nature/Natural Law CAN NOT create or destroy matter/energy.
c. Vitamin C deficiency in Humans results in Scurvy.
d. Protein Secondary Structure is the result of Primary Structure and Hydrogen Bonding.
e. Insulin Deficiency in Type 1 Diabetics results in Keto-Acidosis.
f.  INFORMATION is ALWAYS sourced by Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
g. Life ONLY comes from LIFE
h. ONLY Observation/"Knower of the Path Information" COLLAPSES the Wave Function.
i. The Laws of Physics and Chemistry contain no Symbolic Logic Functions.
j. Wrong Handed Stereoisomers DESTROY DNA/RNA/Protein Secondary Structure.
 
I could go on for MONTHS !!

 

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24. Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome #2.

 

 

Really??  Show The Experiment that VALIDATES this Monstrosity of a Begging The Question AND TEXTBOOK Affirming The Consequent Fallacy...?

 

regards



#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 February 2016 - 12:37 AM

Goku said"

I'm short on time but a quick example of this in regards to human evolution would be the observation that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes while the rest of the apes have 24. Scientists made a hypothesis that if evolution is true then there must have been a chromosomal fusion in our lineage and we will find evidence of this by finding inactive/extra telomeres and centromeres where they shouldn't be in one of our chromosomes. We tested that hypothesis and found such evidence on our chromosome

Wow! Some lousy rasoning. You can't make an observation in the present and then say after the fact it's what would be expected. That's circular reasoning. Talk about spin! If only I could take the powerball numbers that came out today, travel back in time and play them as a prediction. Predctions are made in advance of an event.

The time to make the prediction (hypothesis) was before we allegedly evolved from apes! No sale! This is not science!


  • mike the wiz likes this

#12 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 535 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 31
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:57 AM

 RED = question-begging-epithet, all of the evidence shows humanity is unique, and is evidence therefore that we are made in God's image.

Being unique doesn't mean a thing is impossible to classify. We don't stop being mammals (for example) just because you don't like being associated with other mammals.
 

You need to think more critically of evolution-info, think about it, logically speaking the fact humans have 23 chromos and all apes have 24, is evidence we are not apes, as it is evidence of DIFFERENCE between apes and humans. So to take evidence that suggests we were never apes and say it somehow favours an ape-ancestry is really not a very smart argument when you think about it. The fact is an evolutionary prediction would be that we have 24. It is easy to say "evo would have predicted this" when you state it after the fact. (posteriori) Fact is we all know that evolution would have ideally predicted that humans had the same amount of chromos.

The number of chromosomes isn't the prediction, it's that there would be specific evidence of fusion on the one human chromosome that's similar to two chromosomes in other apes.
 

Goku said"
Wow! Some lousy rasoning. You can't make an observation in the present and then say after the fact it's what would be expected. That's circular reasoning. Talk about spin! If only I could take the powerball numbers that came out today, travel back in time and play them as a prediction. Predctions are made in advance of an event.

The time to make the prediction (hypothesis) was before we allegedly evolved from apes! No sale! This is not science!

The actual timing is irrelevant. The important piece is whether the prediction is made with knowledge of the observations or not. It doesn't matter whether the fusion has already happened, it matters whether the presence (or absence) of the evidence was known before it was predicted.

#13 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 14 February 2016 - 03:04 AM

 RED = question-begging-epithet, all of the evidence shows humanity is unique, and is evidence therefore that we are made in God's image.

 

The standard definition of ape in biological circles is synonymous with the superfamily hominoidea, of which H. sapiens is part of. So, by definition, we are apes.

 

Think about what you are saying. You are predicting that if I find X chromosomes in an ant, and X amount in a banana, and look for evidence of inactive telomeres, then essentially the ant had a common ancestor with the banana.

 

Goku, don't you know that my pet ant I named Goku-Fjuri, is missing a yellow skin,  like the rest of the bananas? :rotfl3:

 

:smashfreak: 

 

We wouldn't expect ants and bananas to have the same number of chromosomes due to a recent common ancestor.  :gilligan: 

 

Though I do appreciate that you are claiming that historical/forensics can be categorized as "science" technically speaking as science can deal in reconstruction. Perhaps there is room for discussion/concession, there. (by the way you should know the telomere-baloney has been debunked for some time, there is evidence that allows us to also say that it may well have jack squat to do with evolution)

 

You need to think more critically of evolution-info, think about it, logically speaking the fact humans have 23 chromos and all apes have 24, is evidence we are not apes, as it is evidence of DIFFERENCE between apes and humans. So to take evidence that suggests we were never apes and say it somehow favours an ape-ancestry is really not a very smart argument when you think about it. The fact is an evolutionary prediction would be that we have 24. It is easy to say "evo would have predicted this" when you state it after the fact. (posteriori) Fact is we all know that evolution would have ideally predicted that humans had the same amount of chromos.

 

The blue part is my point, or half of it anyway. If all other apes have 24 pairs and we have 23 that would be evidence that evolution is fundamentally flawed. That is why evolutionists predicted that sometime after we split off from the other apes that two of our chromosomes fused together. This prediction was made well before we knew about the DNA sequence of chromosome 2; it was a mystery for about 4 decades. It's not that "evo would have predicted this", rather "evo did predict this". Calling it a posteriori prediction is ignorance.

 

Historically scientists did think humans had 48 chromosomes, at least well enough to put it in the textbooks. I suspect this was partially because we already knew apes had 48 chromosomes, and the taboo on human experimentation made observing human karyotypes rather difficult back in the day when technology wasn't as good. When we finally had a good enough karyotype of humans to definitively say we have 46 it took about 4 decades until the chromosome 2 fusion discovery was published. 



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 February 2016 - 03:08 AM

 

 

Driewerf: All species are unique. So humans are not special, or all species are special. Are all species made in god's image?

 

I was expecting that come-back, it is the standard comeback evolutionists give, which is why I was obtuse to use the word, "unique".

 

Really each animal can be regarded as unique but only humans are personas. To pretend the human mind is only sentient in a way comparable with animals is quite ridiculous.

 

I won't argue an elephant-in-the-room. The burden-of-proof isn't upon me, to prove that cars are vehicles, the burden-of-proof is upon you to prove humans are just another animal given your claim goes against all of the facts.,

 

If someone claimed superman existed, the burden-of-proof wouldn't be upon me to prove that he didn't exist.

 

Humans aren't just, "different" like all animals differ. That is not what I mean, so evolutionists EQUIVOCATE with what is meant.

 

It is very obvious what is meant - humans break all of the rules. To say why would be pointless, it would be like explaining why Einstein was special. If I were to say, "because he had mathematical ability" you could just equivocate and counter my argument by saying, "but I can show others that have that ability".

 

It is not just one thing that made Einstein special. In the same way it is not just one thing that makes humanity special. If you think humanity isn't special or different from the animal kingdom, please make your preparations at your local hospital, for your brain transplant.



#15 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 February 2016 - 03:31 AM

 

 

Goku: We wouldn't expect ants and bananas to have the same number of chromosomes due to a recent common ancestor.

 

It highlights circular reasoning.

 

Imagine if I had a theory that said that blue balls were only ever in bags with red balls and I only checked the bags I expected to find them together in as my theory dictated. But then imagine if the bags you never checked had blue balls with yellow balls.

 

The point I am making is that you could say that ants have common ancestors with bananas, by looking at the genes, and I absolutely 100% positive that an expert in genetics could come up with a reason for why banana-genes differ from ant-genes, because there was an evolutionary split.

 

That is all that is happening with human and ape comparisons. Humans are not apes which is why they have 23 chromosomes, so what they do is fish around for reasons to say that this was caused by evolution.

 

It's exactly the same with "stasis". Stasis, as evidence, is evidence of "none-change" and evolution by definition, is, "change" so they say that the none-change is actually caused by change. (the oxymoron, evolutionary-stasis)

 

What I am saying is that logically and scientifically, facts showing that humans are different from apes might be to expect differences such as chromosome-count. That is a big difference.

 

 

 

 

Goku: The standard definition of ape in biological circles is synonymous with the superfamily hominoidea, of which H. sapiens is part of. So, by definition, we are apes.

 

So by definition, as we speak I am an arboreal ape that cannot speak or write and I am swinging from a tree? Because "by definition" all apes have no genetics for speech.

 

All this proves Goku, is that the world's wisdom is FOOLISHNESS. Your definition is so broad that it wouldn't make much difference if you included koala bears. I think you should focus on the pongidae, which doesn't include humans. 

 

 

 

(Pongidae, or the Pongids, is an obsolete primate taxon containing the gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans. They are sometimes called "great apes". )

 

You see, we could just make the definition so broad as to make the word, "ape" mean "lifeforms" if you want, but the error with that illogic, is that it relies on the definition being so broad as to basically be meaningless. (time to swat up; if apples and oranges are part of vegetation, and so are potatoes, does that mean that by definition apples are vegetables?) That is your argument, that because we are part of a super-family, that we are then "apes".

 

If you think what decides if we are apes is a definition then you have an IQ of 4 (but I don't think you really are that dumb to be honest). Do you seriously believe that the nature of something is decided by an ambigious definition or do you think the best way is to determine is to examine all of the differences?

 

For example, if a plane is a "vehicle" and a car is a "vehicle" does this mean the two are the same?

 

All apes have 24 chromosomes(pairs). All apes cannot speak and don't have the software in the brain to. All apes are arboreal and are not capable of graceful bipedalism.

 

You can't just count the things we share with apes, you have to count all of the things we don't share with them, logically.

 

Logically therefore, I am correct because if I am not then that would mean it would be okay to say that an apple is the same thing as a potato.

 

The fact is the differences between an ape and a human, can be proven factually to be remarkably large differences. If you class a potato as a fruit that won't mean that potatoes and apples are the same thing.

 

I can't teach you to think intelligently, Goku, you have to learn to do that for yourself. If you are telling me I am an ape because they class me as one then all that does is amuse me, for I know I am nothing like an ape. If I am merely an ape, I would only differ in superifical ways.

 

For example a chimp and an orangutan only differ within "ape", they both are arboreal, both have the same amount of chromosomes, both can't speak, both can't figure out complexly intelligent things, both can't walk bipedally with grace, both don't have over-design of facial muscles etc....but if you compared a chimp with me

we would not differ superficially.

 

Whether you like it or not, it can be scientifically proven that humans are in their own class. Definitions won't be enough to change my mind, and finding 10 of the most intelligent, knowledgable evolutionists on the planet, will not be enough to refute me. You can't refute that which is deductively provable, but until you value true intellectualism over pseudo-scientism, you are in the dark.

 

THAT is the problem - you don't value truly objective intellectual conclusions if they don't favour evolution, it's quite plain to see your psychology-in-action, you reveal it by endlessly defending the turd that is evolution. :)

 

Bye for now folks, I am pig-sick of debate, and may well give it up, for there is one fundamental truth I have learnt from all of these discussions - and that is that you cannot make your opposition think intelligently if they are determined not to, and if you are a lover of truth like me, then that is a very, very frustrating pasttime. It is like pulling teeth, and I am tired of the exercise in futility.

 

He's the evo-energizer bunny, if God Himself came down to tell him evolution was false, he still wouldn't accept it. If God can't convince you, why should I frustrate myself trying to? 



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 February 2016 - 03:44 AM

 

 

Enoch: I'm actually quite shocked you posted this mike.

 

I am not saying evolution is really forensics though. As you said you "don't know what you don't know". Withe forensics the probabilities are so high that any doubt is so small that nobody would usually think to question it.

 

For example, if we found 80% skeleton of a hadrosaur, a forensic reconstruction of the other 20% would be an example of forensics, but with evolution you can't reconstruct a scenario you don't know happened.

 

So what I mean by "concession" is that I suppose evolutionists could argue that some type of extremely tenuous forensic reconstruction is involved. There is some type of scientific-varnish to evolution. But I personally am not afraid to call evolution, "science" because I don't give the term, "science" any epithetical value.

 

For me, even if evolution is a very tenuous sort of science, it is so weak that it's better definition is "philosophy".

 

I don't share the desire you have to say that evolution is not science, because basically I only see science as glorified-reasoning. For me, the true power is not in "science" but it is in those theories that are able to be confirmed by the scientific method and are largely based on facts. I think gravity, and germ theory, are not successful because they are, "science" I think they are successful because we simply uncovered things that are true.

 

Evolution differs greatly from these other sciences, whether it is classed as science or not.

 

So I don't fall for the non-sequitur of, "science = valid".

 

NO! For there are lots of "science" things that are disproven. Steady state, the law of biogenetics, (Haeckel), abiogenesis from aminos, etc....so even if evolution is still accepted, all that means to me is that they accept a false theory.



#17 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 557 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 14 February 2016 - 04:24 AM

Goku-the-ape, see this is what I mean about not correctly using the scientific method to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

 

If I may paraphrase what you are saying in the quote:

 

"We believe that evolution is true, therefore evidence of chromosomal fusion which we believe occurred via the evolutionary process must have happened via evolution. Therefore we conclude that the theory of evolution is true and validates our belief that man and apes arose from a common ancestor via evolution."

 

That's so circular and non-scientific, it's actually hilarious.

 

Yes, I am an ape. I'm also an animal. Not sure what you are getting at there.

 

If the chromosomal fusion is demonstrated, then what other mechanisms are there besides evolution/genetics?

 

To put it in the proper scientific method perspective you should word it like this:

 

"We see evidence of chromosome 2 fusion in humans that gives humans 23 pairs. We also see no chromosome 2 fusion in apes, giving them 24 pairs. What possible explanation is there for the discrepancy between human and ape chromosomes?"

 

I guarantee you that an honest, objective scientific methodological approach to the question when asked correctly like that will not lead to the absolute determination of evolution as fact. But it will instead open the door wide open to a consideration from other than a materialistic-only mindset.

 

Perhaps the discrepancy between the number of chromosomes is because of the fusion?

 

And, that's the rub. Materialistic-only scientists have been, are, and will always be working under the handicap of never, ever finding the truth of the matter because they are doing science with half their brains tied behind their backs.

 

Once again, Goku-the-ape, it all comes down to worldview. Your bias simply cannot let you accept any non-evolution-based answer to a correctly worded, objectively-asked scientific question.

 

One of the underlying philosophical principles of science is the usage of methodological naturalism. You can pontificate all you want about God and the supernatural but it simply isn't science. That doesn't make it wrong or bad, it just means it ain't science.

 

Many theistic scientists are evolutionists too, including the co-founder of ToE Alfred Russel Wallace who co-authored with Darwin. You can complain about 'materialistic only scientists', but it is just a red herring for multiple reasons. From my point of view this whole 'materialistic' criticism, which I think is more accurately phrased as 'naturalism', is really a criticism of science itself. On that front I will agree that that is a limitation of science, and while I don't think science has a monopoly on knowledge I do not see this limitation as a bad thing.



#18 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:08 AM

 

 

Goku: Yes, I am an ape

 

Then how did you write that sentence? Would you define an ape as something that can write?

Here is the definition of ape, from google;

 

Attached File  ape.jpg   23.01KB   0 downloads

 

As you can see, I didn't get the definition from a H*vind website or something like that. I think calling yourself an ape is to argue-to-the-extreme. It would be like a feminist cutting of her you-know-whats, just to make a loud noise on behalf of feminism.

 

I don't think you have to dehumanize yourself just for the sake of your beloved theory.

 

 

 

 

Telomeres are typically found at the ends of linear eukaryotic chromosomes and confer stability by preventing fusion via a ‘capping’ function. The telomere region involves a complex and dynamic framework of DNA motif repeats, structural loops, structural and functional RNAs and a wide variety of proteins.6 In a fusion event as described in the human chromosome 2 model, the end result should produce two identifiable telomeres characterized by a specific repeat motif and oriented in a head-to-head configuration. A certain genomic landscape must be present if two chromosomes fused head-to-head as claimed by the current evolutionary model. The consensus 5’ to 3’ telomere motif in humans, chimps, apes, and mammals in general, is (TTAGGG)n and typically occurs in perfect tandem for stretches of DNA from about 10 to 15 kb (10,000 to 15,000 bases) and contains 1,667 to 2,500 telomere repeats at each chromosome end. In a head-to-head fusion of two chromosomes, we would expect at least 5,000 bases of (TTAGGG)n repeats in tandem, albeit in a slightly degenerate state, given a supposed ~1 to 5 million years of evolution since the fusion event occurred.

http://creation.com/...some-2-fusion-1

 

 

 

The only evolutionary research group to seriously analyze the actual fusion site DNA sequence data in detail were confounded by the results which showed a lack of evidence for fusion—a genomic condition for this region which they termed ‘degenerate’.8 In attempting to correlate rates of evolutionary change with the extreme degeneracy observed in the putative fusion region, they claimed that the “head-to-head arrays of repeats at the fusion site have degenerated significantly from the near perfect arrays of (TTAGGG)n found at telomeres.” They also stated, “if the fusion occurred within the telomeric repeat arrays less than ~6 Ma, why are the arrays at the fusion site so degenerate?” The actual data indicates that perhaps the only thing that is degenerate is the evolutionary dogma surrounding the fusion model....Assuming that two telomeres exist in a head-to-head fusion produces another major problem, namely that telomeres are designed to prevent fusion


#19 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,882 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:10 AM

Popoi said:

The actual timing is irrelevant. The important piece is whether the prediction is made with knowledge of the observations or not. It doesn't matter whether the fusion has already happened, it matters whether the presence (or absence) of the evidence was known before it was predicted.

Its obvious that human and apes can't mate--they are differnt spcies and have significantly different body types which geneticist claim is resultant from genetic differences. Is It not widely known that the differences between apes and humans is genetic? Therefore, it is disengenous to claim that there has been no observation since it is widely accepted evidence that there are genetic differnces between apes and humans--detailed knowledge fusion or no fusion is extaneous. Genetic difference cause the obsevable dfferences between humans and apes do they not? What else, according to evo, coud cause the differences?

Evolution can not predict a future event. That is a mental functtion and subjet to observer bias.



#20 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,725 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 14 February 2016 - 05:38 AM

Popoi, the only prediction evo would make before knowledge of chromos, was that humans should be the same as apes. We would not expect a different amount of chromos.

 

You can argue until you are blue in the face, the fact is if humans were never related to apes then we would expect such evidence, and we find it. 

 

The predictions by Miller were also FALSE/INCORRECT. So no pretending these facts are what evo predicts as that is laughable, 

 

 

 

but a comparison of the chimp and human chromosomes reveals that the centromere in human chromosome 2 is in a very different location than predicted by a fusion event as shown in part two of this study. This necessitates an implausible series of events, including the loss of both chimp centromeres when chromosomes 2A and 2B fused, and the rapid evolution of a new centromere to provide functionality to human chromosome 2.

 

centromere 1 and 2 were predicted to be adjacent to the telomere at the fusion site (prediction) but in fact number 12 and 13 are adjacent at the fusion site.

 

You guys really must understand the claims you make before you make them. :rolleyes:






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users