Redux is exactly what we need. We can then repeat the process of trying to explain with verified and agreed data the obvious nature of evolution and have two or three people deny everything while avoiding admitting their "God Did It" opinion and refusing to provide alternate explanations. Sound like great fun. Lets just begin by asking the BIG question they never answer and never will: If not evolution....what alternate explanation for the diversity of life do you offer?
Yup! The mathematical probability of identical ERV insertions in different species are incredibly remote. When it happens between multiple species then it is definitive evidence of common ancestry as predicted by the theory of evolution.
Those who believe that education stops after "goddidit" are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Education is a never ending process throughout our lives. A life without learning new things on a daily basis must be exceedingly boring IMO.
"If not evolution... what alternate explanation for the diversity of life do you offer?" demonstrates total ignorance of science. WHEN AN HYPOTHESIS FAILS, YOU MUST REJECT IT. PERIOD. NO SUBSTITUTE IS NECESSARY TO DISCARD NONSENSE. If you can't even figure that out, you really are hopeless. Here is the ignorance of today's Darwinists and climate change followers laid bare. They know nothing but are full of opinions.
Because I'm not. One doesn't need a science degree to understand that the evidence for evolution is very weak. You, nor anyone else, has cold hard evidence for evolution. If there was such evidence you would have provided it. You didn't because you can't. I believe there's another reason besides science that's preventing you from acknowledging that evolution is wishful thinking.
Quibbling because you are clueless about how DNA functions? Thanks for proving that you have zero credibility when it comes to comprehending how DNA establishes relationships.
Then how do you explain the sort of life we have currently on this planet? Let's use elephants for example. The modern elephants (Asian and African) are a recent species. There is no fossil record of them beyond 10,000 years ago. We have mammoths and mastodon species that overlap with the modern elephants a little bit...but they themselves do not go any farther back than a certain point. If not for Macro-Evolution...where are these newer species coming from?
I'm still awaiting an answer to this question. If not evolution....what alternate explanation for the diversity of life do you offer? Perhaps one of our three members who live in disbelief could answer?
Elephants, as we know them, evolved about 3 million years ago which is relatively close to when tool using hominids evolved. Perhaps both species benefited from environmental changes around that period. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mesaxonia/elephantidae.php
Either way...before a certain point, there were no elephants. Then after that point there were. The question remains. If there is no evolution, where did they come from?
RE: Fallacies of Evolution Redux → ChemEngineer, et al, I believe that Professor Lemoine was a quasi-Evolutionists, holding the position that: "neither evolution nor creation is a scientific theory." ⇔ {Link} DR Lemoine, a Geologist, was addressing the question (Evolution 'vs' Creationism) from the standpoint of what the fossil record revealed. There are quite a few (a very significant number) of scientific community that hold some measure of a belief in the direction of a Supreme Being (SB) --- or --- Ultimate Cosmic Creator (UCC). But in saying that, there is no empirical evidence (knowledge acquired by means of observation and experimentation) for either an an SB, UCC, or lesser deity. There is no universally accepted set of characteristics or attributes of an SB or UCC. In the case of Intelligent Design/Creationism, it is entirely "faith based." In the case of Evolution, an "evidence based pursuit," ⇔ {Link} it rests on more. Most Respectfully, R
Unless one of our resident denial activists has something to contribute beyond the "Nuh Uh" typical of their replies....this new thread serves only one purpose...it promotes the theory of evolution. Come on guys...spew some garbage.
That is a question you need to direct to the science deniers who fallaciously allege that there is no actual evidence for evolution.
That is to whom the question is directed. However, no one has deigned to even acknowledge it much less answer it.
As anyone can see from this vomit inducing redux of an earlier thread, it is impossible to argue with a creationist. The sad truth is that it really does not matter one bit if this man believes in science or not. The world goes on regardless of his opinions. I suggest no one respond to this poster, it will only cause more inanity.
Untrue. There is profound empirical evidence of God, our Creator. Many books have been written, papers published, lectures given citing such evidence.
Feel free to provide this imaginary "empirical evidence" of your deity. Just make sure that it complies with the DEFINITION of the term "empirical", m'kay? http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html
There are many poor souls on this thread who don't understand science so they accept whatever they have been told to believe. This is a sad reflection upon our education process and especially since students are no longer taught to think as much as they are taught to regurgitate, i.e. to give back or repeat, especially something not fully understood or assimilated: to regurgitate the teacher's lectures on the exam (thefreedictionary). I've also come believe there is something besides science that is preventing them to challenge evolution. It could be anything but most likely a dogma they've allowed themselves to be steeped in. There must be something else that's forcing them to believe in something that has very little evidence to support it. As you said, they also have to resort to name calling. I'm not a creationist yet the poor souls these poor souls insist that I am because they can't bare the fact that there are people who can think for themselves.
I'm not quibbling. You are quibbling because you don't understand DNA. You certainly have zero credibility when it comes to comprehending how DNA establishes relationships. You're very good at regurgitating what you've been told but very, very weak in the realm of science.
