re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution

quote:

---

Can't be proven. Prove that you have a point.

---

So one of the most common and important experiences, love, doesn't exist empirically.

Congrats on typing an absolutely irrelevant answer.

Well sure you could observe behaviors and brain activity in different scenarios and show a probibilistic proof that two people are in what we call love. Other than that you have only human testimony which much like the bible is unreliable. I know you think you're making an intelligent point with this red herring arguement, but you really just sound like a fool. YOu probably believe the earth is 6000 years onld and would choose to dismiss the mountains of evidence proving otherwise.

I don't know why I always seem to find myself in these arguements when I know its a complete waste.

quote:

---

I'm agnostic on the creation vs evolution debate. Don't know and don't care.

---

Ignorant*.

If you sincerely don't know enough about Evolution to know whether it is right or not then you have refused to look at the evidence.

quote:

---

I'm not agnostic on the question of God. And I find theories which can explain none of my own experiences (or any human experience) except from a hindsight viewing to be ultimately useless in how I live my life.

---

Ahhh, so I have a bias but you don't? The ol' projection maneuver, just as I predicted.

Evidence for the evolution of Homo sapiens from a common ancestor with chimpanzees is found in the number of chromosomes in humans as compared to all other members of Hominidae. All hominidae have 24 pairs of chromosomes, except humans, who have only 23 pairs. Human chromosome 2 is a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[20][21]

The evidence for this includes:

The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the common chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[22][23]
The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[24]
The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[25]

There is also a large body of molecular evidence for a number of different mechanisms for large evolutionary changes, among them: genome and gene duplication, which facilitates rapid evolution by providing substantial quantities of genetic material under weak or no selective constraints; horizontal gene transfer, the process of transferring genetic material to another cell that is not an organism's offspring, allowing for species to acquire beneficial genes from each other; and recombination, capable of reassorting large numbers of different alleles and of establishing reproductive isolation.

Pseudogenes, also known as noncoding DNA, are extra DNA in a genome that do not get transcribed into RNA to synthesize proteins. Some of this noncoding DNA has known functions, but much of it has no known function and is called "Junk DNA". This is an example of a vestige since replicating these genes uses energy, making it a waste in many cases.

The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase, are found in everything from the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core.

Endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) are remnant sequences in the genome left from ancient viral infections in an organism. The retroviruses (or virogenes) are always passed on to the next generation of that organism that received the infection. This leaves the virogene left in the genome. Because this event is rare and random, finding identical chromosomal positions of a virogene in two different species suggests common ancestry.

Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons.[6][7] Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes.[8][9]

All known extant (surviving) organisms are based on the same biochemical processes: genetic information encoded as nucleic acid (DNA, or RNA for many viruses), transcribed into RNA, then translated into proteins (that is, polymers of amino acids) by highly conserved ribosomes. Perhaps most tellingly, the Genetic Code (the "translation table" between DNA and amino acids) is the same for almost every organism, meaning that a piece of DNA in a bacterium codes for the same amino acid as in a human cell.

One of the strongest evidences for common descent comes from the study of gene sequences. Comparative sequence analysis examines the relationship between the DNA sequences of different species,[1] producing several lines of evidence that confirm Darwin's original hypothesis of common descent. If the hypothesis of common descent is true, then species that share a common ancestor inherited that ancestor's DNA sequence, as well as mutations unique to that ancestor. More closely related species have a greater fraction of identical sequence and shared substitutions compared to more distantly related species.

LINK

-- This is a fraction of what they have.

You either A. Can't be bothered to research anything.

Or B. Think every single biologist on the planet is apart of a conspiracy or is completely ignorant on how things work.

It amazes me that when I criticize the Bible you get your panties in a twist about how I'm not a scholar, yet you are completely content with saying "I'unno" in lieu of extensive research done by biologists.



Willfully ignorant.

quote:

---

Or I don't care what the outcome of the evidence is. You're invested in the evolution debate for your own reasons. That's fine. I'm not.

I have never claimed to not have bias. The claim of non-bias is the first sure sign of stupidity, no matter the topic.

---

If you honestly think that people are incapable of looking beyond their bias or acknowledging that they have them and adjusting to make sure that they attain the truth -- then you have no concept of intellectual honesty.

I would follow the evidence, even if it meant reconsidering my preconceptions of an article. I know a bias exists, but I also know that my unbelief is on solid grounds and have given you evidence.

And if you don't care about Evolution, then why are you even here, aside to be a rabble rouser?

quote:

---

Speaking of cognitive biases. Never did answer the question the other day on the earliest text we have for Plato's Republic. You and I both know the reason for that.

---

It's in the 9th century -- that's the oldest possessed. What's fortunate about Plato, though, is that there are tons of contemporary articles to discern from his time period -- something unafforded to ANY of the authors of the New Testament before 50.

"It has been suggested that Isocrates parodies the Republic in his work Busiris by showing Callipolis' similarity to the Egyptian state founded by a king of that name.[12]" -- Contemporary and lived in his time.

We have his students, critics and peers to draw information from and several documents that reference The Republic.

We also have no reason to suspect that someone would make up the figure of Plato, especially if he had foes who disagreed with him (along with Socrates, and wrote contemporary articles).

We have plenty of reason to believe Jesus to be constructed at some point -- especially since most of the works were interpolated to better suit the current rulers of areas. The Athenians were pretty good at keeping records, and making stone carvings and ensuring that celebrity was around.

What's even more damning is that it was about 300 years and over, older than Jesus, so it should be phantasmagorically easier to accrue ANY CONTEMPORARY WORK AT ALL from him or his disciples.

quote:

---

keep fightin the good fight straws

---

;Shed a tear.

It's because of people like you that I do this, thank you.