One. If I find evidence for a statement overwhelming, I consider it a fact. As it happens, when it comes to evolution, that conclusion is also shared by biologists (and other scientists, for that matter) generally. So the name of the ‘we’ club is ‘scientists’, or more colorfully, ‘virtually everyone who understands the subject.’
6 Likes
Wrong - that is not my statement. You’ve misquoted me.
Here is my statement …
You left out the words in bold, “via known biological mechanisms”, which puts a different spin on my statement entirely.
My statement doesn’t argue that genetics don’t confirm that humans evolved from a hominid - it argues that genetics don’t confirm that known biological mechanisms are responsible for that evolution.
No point speculating about a nonsense impossibility … scientists will never know how to even start evolving a human from a hominid.
In other words, you can’t explain how human beings evolved to be infinitely more intelligent than chimps and all the other animals.
I accept that ToE is the best scientific explanation for the history of life on earth (for what that it (the theory) is worth).
Your initial poor analogy is now followed by a poor argument, based on a handful of nutters who believe the earth is flat.
‘Well supported’ means ‘has lots of evidence to support it’. It says nothing about how many people are even aware of that evidence. It’s a fact that neutral pions decay into two photons, but there’s hardly popular consensus on the subject. Most people don’t even know what a neutral pion is.
Yes, in my eyes. That’s because I’m the one saying that I consider it a fact. That virtually all other scientists agree with me is nice but not essential, just as it’s nice but not essential that most people I run into who don’t think it’s a fact seem to be unfamiliar with the evidence for it and uninterested in learning about that evidence.
For those objecting to the definition of ‘fact’ that I’m using, please provide your preferred definition so we can all know what we’re arguing about.
2 Likes
- LAW
the truth about events as opposed to interpretation:
“there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter”
It is the legal definition, granted.
Richard
Ten thousand Wrongs don’t make a Right.
You’re forgetting that evolution science makes up it’s own rules and definitions … eg, if a theory becomes a belief it becomes a fact.
Natural selection favored the changes that produced air breathing organisms out of fish, because fish cannot live on land. At one time there was no dry land, so there were no air breathing organisms.
However, as the environment changed, some land became dry and plants evolved to grow on it, so the land became an irresistible source of plentiful food, a new ecological niche. Some fish were drawn to marsh lands, where flotation sacks evolved into lungs and gave them entre to life on dry land.
God is rational and acts in rational ways. God does things in a rational order, which is where the order (logos) of science comes from. The only problem seems that God did not consult humans before God created the universe. Everyone seems to be wedded to their own view of how God created humankind.
1 Like
This bit shows that you are engaged in serious duplicity: you ignored what was actually stated and repeated the very same thing that was corrected; by ignoring the actual point you set up a straw man argument to knock down.
1 Like
And why would they want to?
You give evolution purpose and intelligence. That may be assigned to God but not to scientific evolution.
Richard
1 Like
This bit shows that you’ve made the same absurd mistake as he did (which I decided to ignore, lest I dignify it with a response).
If I say, humans are infintely more intelligent than chimps, I’m obviously using a figure-of-speech … I’m not saying humans have infinite intelligence. That should be obvious - I can’t believe I now find myself having to explain what I meant.
What is this? Kindergarten?
If I say, Tiger Woods was an infinitely more talented golfer than me, I’m obviously not saying Tiger Woods had infinite talent.
1 Like
Really? Says who? Were you there to witness it?
How did natural selection evolve the double-circlation heart of a mammal from the single-circulation heart of a fish?
I think maybe you’ve been reading too many comic books.
Natural selection is called survival of the fittest, because it is believed that the purpose of life is to survive and prosper. If life does not have this meaning and purpose evolution doesn’t work.
Evolution is the creative power of God. It is based on the fact that God created life to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. God gives God’s Creation purpose and rationality as God sees fit.
And in legal proceedings, how are facts established? By evidence, right? That’s what the jury is there to decide, and that’s why evidence is presented in a trial. If you think there’s a better way to decide what we should consider facts, tell us.
2 Likes
Opps, wrong link 
By the way, the twisting and folding is what trapped the recurrent laryngeal nerve under the aortic arch, which is referenced frequently in discussing design flaws in the body, caused by the constraints of evolution.
a. I don’t know, because I have not worked extensively with vertebrates.
b. I’m unsure if anyone can know in detail, given the paucity of soft tissue preservation of the right date.
When the subject matter is science, figures of speech are not obvious, nor expected.
Nice insight! So “Bring forth!” connects with “Be fruitful and multiply”, and we get a plethora of species. Indeed not just a plethora, but an ever-unfolding sequence of plethoras!
2 Likes
I’ll add another one: From fish- to mammal heart | Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
If god is controlling Evolution then survival is irrelevant. Survival only comes into play if the driving force is random. It gives TOE a control rod but if God is doing it then it is just the will of God that things change or survive.
This is why it annoys me when Christians start promoting scientific evolution, especially if they actually think God is not only involved but guiding it. Survival of the fittest has nothing to do with God, it is alturistic.
And people claim that I do not understand Evolution.
Richard
2 Likes