Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About nandoschicken

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
  • How old are you?
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Cambridge, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

94 profile views
  1. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    No, it doesn't prove things in the literal sense, its not law. Science is subject to constant revision. Well its important because the evidence is there to see for both sides d) RNA viruses? Life forms not based on DNA are at least possible e) what does this mean? HOX genes seem to be shared across every animal group. But an explanation should at least be based on observable facts about biology? Its possible that there were multiple (original) origins. At a microbial level, things are so plastic that the species concept ceases to be useful. That doesnt change the overall picture that we have come to so far, that all known life shares a common ancestor. Because you dont seem to get my point Macroevolution is true, because of the simple observation that speciation happens. Speciation happens with every group of organisms we care to look at. It is a universal phenomena Mike. This means that common descent is an inevitable consequence of speciation, over long time period of time. I accept, in general, your critique that this doesnt happen quickly. The information argument has been thoroughly debunked Mike. Genomes constantly expand, increasing their "information" content. If the entire genome replicating, and thousands of new mutations, does not count as new information, then information is not a useful parameter to begin with. As definied by biologists, Macroevolution is observed (speciation) and large-scale macroevolution and common descent are the logical inferences we are forced to make. I've been consistent with everything ive said Mike? agreed, its the best model we have
  2. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    They are shared by ancestry if they are the same genes. The fact that they both used for echolocation is because of convergent evolution. DNA sequences seperated by a few letters and in general showing strong evidence of shared history do not just happen without a biological reason (e.g. identical twins). The same principle apparently applies between species, since we know species evolve from earlier pre-existing species.....
  3. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    Speciation has been observed. The evidence for common ancestry is very easily researched. It's not proven, because nothing in science is proven. Creationists say this evidence is "common design". If the life forms had nothing in common. But they do. As a matter of fact, the only known ways for organisms to share DNA is for them to have a) shared ancestry the same viral/bacterial infections c) horizontal gene transfer Of the 3, only the first can explain the known evidence completely If you want your ideas to be taken seriously, you need a competing mechanism (ie. creation). A long chain of expanding speciation already explains everything sufficiently. You don't have any objection to the generalisations of other scientific fields, only evolution. Unfortunately we can only witness so much directly.
  4. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    Mike, we dont expect new anatomies to evolve in any short space of time. The whole point is that new anatomies dont just evolve, they are recycled from old ones. This is why mammals all share the same skeletal structure for example. Information is not really anything to do with it. Your legimate points about the limits to speciation rates (there has to be some genetic diversity) doesnt change the fact that the only demonstrable cause of new species, is evolution. By necessity, this means we must treat every species in the same way, and assume that the same principles were in affect. Afterall, how else should we explain it if not with what we can observe today? Presumably you dont have a problem with the idea that river channels may exist on mars, or that atoms on the other side of the galaxy are made from the same particles as here on earth. Thus, logically Mike, we dont invent a new explanation for each species (an instant creation), since we dont for anything else.
  5. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    Biologists define macroevolution as evolution at or above species level. Both have been observed. Large-scale macroevolution is inferred by microevolution, since if a new species evolves from another species it means they all (must) do.
  6. nandoschicken

    Creationist Double Standards

    They would look appropriate for whichever circumstances you wanted them to fit into. Why stop at jelly fish. Sharks are nearly exactly the same as hundreds of million years ago. This too is evidence of the creation model. There are also lots of historical exceptions from today. Your model does not consider anything about the ecology, climate or geology of the fossils. if we had a full evolutionary history of jellyfish, you would still claim that this is not evidence of evolution (indeed, you have claimed elsewhere that "we would expect to see evidence of evolution" in a created world..). Its not good evidence for your model (as a constructive critique). Anyone can provide evidence for created kinds by: 1) Showing the creation process or 2) Demonstrating a life form with no historical forebears These are both essential and possible in the creation model. Evolutionary stasis is a secondary issue compared to the total absence of evidence for a global flood to begin with (e.g. global mixed flood sediment, choatic fossil record, additional water, desert sandstones in between marine sediments......). But evolution isn't falsified by a lack of evolution, since evolutionary stasis is observable in populations. Evolution is falsified by evidence completely at-odds with our understanding of the known history of evolution. No Mike. If evolution is false, then the correct (scientific) answer is "we still don't know". As ive pointed out, special creation was held to be true for centuries, with no evidence at all. Its a position that requires no knowledge of biology or science. This is not a good thing.
  7. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    We dont state "weve made up our mind". We are here to debate (and maybe learn). We believe in evolution as much as the evidence suggests. Many things in science cannot be demonstrated directly*. This doesnt mean they havent occurred (or are still occuring). Practicing biologists define macroevolution at or above the species level, so it has been demonstrated, including arguably new genera of domesticated crop species. *this does not extend to supernatural events
  8. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    Even if this was true, it places it in the same category as creationism. You may as well go with the explanation that is based on basic biology.
  9. nandoschicken

    Creationist Double Standards

    If nothing else, we have a convincing case for how humans evolved, confirmed by genetic evidence. Also, if atheists questioned creationists "not using their brain" we would be called condescending. Its very hard to know what we would "expect to see", since YEC did not require any evidence for centuries (this point still escapes you). You are making a slight improvement by saying "life is consistent according to its biblical kind". There are good evolutionary reasons to explain why groups of animals stay the same. Its because their environment or niche doesnt change either. Notwithstanding any adaptations which are not physically obvious. Assuming jellyfish operate in the same way other life forms do (its a good bet: DNA genome, reproduction), then Jellyfish must have had a progenitor as well. Finding evidence of this ancestor is unlikely, having no hard parts and being a marine animal. Which Jellyfish? Individual or colonial? Hydrozoans are incredibly diverse. Which one was the original "Kind" mike? If we interrogate the idea it has several flaws. For example, the bible doesnt mention the vast majority of species that have no modern counterpart and are now extinct. It also doesnt suggest that humans would be related to other life-forms. Created kinds, after their own, but they would have identical genetic sequences suggesting shared history? The sun dissapears every day, therefore i think a new sun is created each time. The question is meaningless. The evidence is that we are quantifiably more like other each other than we are to other animals. By the same measure, we are all more like chimps than we are like cows. What you have presented is evidence of a lack of evolution. Which takes us back to the 19th century and the great debate.... Evidence for creation would include instances of creation. Not merely an absence of evolution. For example, Jesus appeared to Thomas (positive evidence). You do understand this Mike. Do you not see that having no evidence is a weaker position than having scraps of circumstantial evidence? At some point, people have to have answers. It can't just be: "well, evolution is crap isn't it?"
  10. nandoschicken

    Creationist Double Standards

    YEC existed long before macroevolution had any evidence at all, so how can you suggest/infer its simply a matter of misinterpreting evidence? You have no evidence in support of santa (or father christmas). We do have evidence of active process of evolution, such as speciation. It is illogical to choose an explanation with no evidence/observable mechanism, versus one with one. First, can you at least see that "common design" is confusing for people? Second, it doesnt fit in with any logical inference we might make from speciation, that things are quantifiably similar to each other because they are quantifably genetically related to each other. Third, common design is not the rule. Flight has "occurred" several times for example, the design for flight is different in each case. The design elements that are shared follow a nested hierachy supported by genetic evidence. There is no obvious reason why bats should use finger bones for flights while birds use their whole arms; they may even share the same ecological niche and food sources. They both work equally well, so that isn't the reason either. Several examples are not the best choice, and are compromises. As ive pointed out, its not logical why bats and birds should use such different methods of locomotion. Every species is transitional between something. More often than not the changes (or "hybrid") are exceptionally rare. As Darwin noted, hybrid Orchids, between two different varieties are rarer than their parent varieties. So it is through every population over time, such that the change is only obvious in the retrospective. Not that we are even lacking evidence of good transitionals. We will always have gaps, its how we as a community can piece together what happened using available evidence. Mike you've said yourself there is some evidence for evolution. So it cant be both ways. We cant have evolution and literal creation. Where else should be look for evidence? its quite important though Mike, because before biology/science developed people thought YEC was the best model. Society thought YEC was the best model, with punitive punishments for trangressors against the religious consensus. They did this with no evidence at all. The incomplete picture of evolution is far more preferable than theocratic autocracy? Natural selection is the opposite of random chance. We agree there is evidence for evolution - but which evidence supports creation? Please explain in more detail how the evidence for evolution supports creation.
  11. nandoschicken

    Creationist Double Standards

    If there isnt any evidence in support of macroevolution and common descent, which evidence specifically supports the creation/ common design hypothesis?
  12. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    We wouldnt (and don't) need any transitional. Even if your argument was true, that we are just exaggerating what evidence we do have, none of the evidence supports creation. Hence why the great debate of the 19th century occurred at all....because people were trying to explain things scientifically Mike....rather than religiously. The idea is to work backwards from what we do know as facts, not what we believe. Exactly. "explained away easily". In a way that conforms to your religious belief.
  13. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    ..or its a convienent get-out-of-jail card to avoid providing any actual evidence in favour of divine creation. It makes sense, but that doesnt mean its true. For a start, what necessitates god to begin with? God is a perfectly parsimonious explanation with anything, always. Because god. Yes. But not everyone believes in the designer. Some believe in a different designer, or none at all. Your job is to evidence the designer/need for the designer from the existing evidence. and whats more, YOUR designer. At the moment "you" have the evidence evolutionists have gathered and are sloppily rehashing it into a creationist framework. They are not the same. Well which transitionals are you looking for? For our own species there are ample evidence of transitional forms between ape-like and human-like populations. The real issue is whether you think they mean anything or whether they just demonstrate god's love for diversity.
  14. nandoschicken

    Is Evolution A Proven Fact?

    Other people have already said it really well.. Evolution isnt a proven fact because in science nothing is proven. Science is about creating models to best explain reality. Whatever model we construct, it must account for obviously true phenomena (e.g. speciation, microevolution). We do not see things being created. Even if "some" creation was necessary (what suggests this?), it would be incredibly hands off creation, to the point that it makes for a more parsimonious and logical explanation to ignore the evidence for evolution to begin with. Evolution has the added benefit of being consistent with other scientific discoveries, and does not need order-of-magnitude adjustments to such fundamentally important constants as the speed of light....
  15. nandoschicken

    Why Pick Evolution To Argue Against?

    thats because many creationists lack a good understanding of biology and science in general. JUNK DNA makes no sense, but incest, talking snakes, giants, extreme longevity (old age), a vengeful god, and an infinite universe...that all makes perfect sense..... its so obvious. If ID was true, it has profound implications for the "designer" and for religious faith. It would have to be a very powerful being, so powerful that if was an alien it may actually be indisinguishable from a god to us. So while you can be an atheistic IDr, i think the argument is dishonest to begin with, since the rationale/main backer behind ID - religious fundamentalism - is obvious. Evolution is compatible with religon because it is based on physically tangible evidence, and makes no metaphysical claims for itself.

Important Information

Our Terms