Do you believe in evolution?

[Photon]

Dont think there is any statistics about this. But one can distinguish between soft and hard atheism

Soft atheists can also be called agnostic atheists. Meaning there is no active belief in a deity or deities, but they dont claim that there is no/cant be a deity or deities.

Whereas hard atheists do make that claim. And for them your above statement would definitely apply.

And still: theism and acceptance of science are not mutually exclusive. Theists dont necessarily believe in creation and are religious more for spirituality

Post automatically merged: Mar 20, 2023

Guess dancing around the question is what you got

I myself never actually read the scientific paper in detail. But i remember it vividly i read it first from an article that quoted a saying from a Nobel Prize winner. I just did some quick research and i found out it's Ilya Prigogine, who won the Nobel Prize in chemistry twice. This is also often reiterated by other scientists. I mean, at least you can picture it this way that there are billions of planets, some of which have been discovered and no known life has been observed. That alone would give you a crude prediction of life existing in the first place by dividing 1 (our planet earth) by the total number of those planets

People really disbelieve in evolution?
Did i timetravel into 1700 or something?

There is a clear distinction between disbelieving evolution and having doubt in evolution. People can still consider the currently accepted evolution theory as a valid theory and still have doubt in it, and it is for good reasons.

 

[BleakAsh]

Scientific theories are verified though. I shared the definition earlier in the thread.

Get over it,we are primates. Id also rather have us be alien hybrids made from annunakis, but it is what it is

Are verified based on assumptions and probabilistic models. Meant to give some meaning to the history even if its INCORRECT
potentially

Us sharing most of endogenous retroviruses with chimps in the exact same spot in our genome shows pretty conclusively that we are closely related to them. There is nothing really suggesting otherwise. All attempts in this thread were easily shut down by looking at the science yall are citing.

Protein comparison bring 20% why is the disparity there

0% similarly in orphan genes

Their Genome is massive compared to ours

Humans have get Alzeimers
Its literally depedns on what you pick and choose to compare and contrast thats how the 99% similar figure came out

Here is what a Nobel prize winner evolutionist geneticist named Savante Paabo says on the question

" could researchers combine all whats known and come up with with all what's known to come uo witha. Precise percentage difference between humans and Chimps? "

His answer: " i don't think there
Is any way to calculate a number"


rreference : Relative difference the 1 percent myth

SSo there is no way to really quantify without assumptions

You base your "deduction" on the assumption that "oh look we have this in common and we have similarities THAT MUST MEAN WE ARE RELATED" but little do you twits know THAT LITERALLY AN ASSUMPTION OF HOMOLOGY has nothing going for it.. And you are soo deluded that you don't we kniw about the opposite which is Homoplacy which is similarity not due to common descent which is thing







There is reason why you see ape-human comparison based upon assumptions of Homology as admitted by the paper that Tejas sent as a proof of common descent and i QUOTE

"Hence, the
strong results from the model selection tests provide a
firm logical basis for relying on the inference from
sequence similarity to homology as a general principle"
Homology : assumption that similarity is due to common descent

The whole argument meant for homology goes as follows :

-You assume that similarity is due to common descent which is an assumption (every evolutionist ever)

- you observe genetic similarities with that underlying assumption

- you conclude that similarity is due to common descent

That's called a circular argument obvious ignoramuses wouldn't get that


I have all the right to reject something that is fundamentally based on speculations and assumptions no matter what evidence is used to narrow the similitude

You can gas light reality into taking assumptions as even remotely near to fact hope your delusions do good to you

Be the APE you are so ardently defending


But don't scurry away like a rat come back and prove that Quran gets the embryology wrong

 

[uyuu]

I havent seen some ancient pictures or writings at the wall except i cant help thinking that there should be someone intelligent enough planning and drawing it. It's more possible. The way i think about creatures, biology, physics, etc is the same: there should be something intelligent enough to plan and create it, and it holds a much larger probability compared to random stuff happening over time in trial-and-error fashion in order to make a perfect design of everything.

 

[Zenos7]

I havent seen some ancient pictures or writings at the wall except i cant help thinking that there should be someone intelligent enough planning and drawing it. It's more possible. The way i think about creatures, biology, physics, etc is the same: there should be something intelligent enough to plan and create it, and it holds a much larger probability compared to random stuff happening over time in trial-and-error fashion in order to make a perfect design of everything.

Why are there vestigial structures then? Or all kinds of various imperfections throughout the animal kingdom (us included)?

There is no perfect design. Evolution just brings forth what works and what can survive as populations

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Are verified based on assumptions and probabilistic models. Meant to give some meaning to the history even if its INCORRECT
potentially



Protein comparison bring 20% why is the disparity there

0% similarly in orphan genes

Their Genome is massive compared to ours

Humans have get Alzeimers
Its literally depedns on what you pick and choose to compare and contrast thats how the 99% similar figure came out

Here is what a Nobel prize winner evolutionist geneticist named Savante Paabo says on the question

" could researchers combine all whats known and come up with with all what's known to come uo witha. Precise percentage difference between humans and Chimps? "

His answer: " i don't think there
Is any way to calculate a number"


rreference : Relative difference the 1 percent myth

SSo there is no way to really quantify without assumptions

You base your "deduction" on the assumption that "oh look we have this in common and we have similarities THAT MUST MEAN WE ARE RELATED" but little do you twits know THAT LITERALLY AN ASSUMPTION OF HOMOLOGY has nothing going for it.. And you are soo deluded that you don't we kniw about the opposite which is Homoplacy which is similarity not due to common descent which is thing







There is reason why you see ape-human comparison based upon assumptions of Homology as admitted by the paper that Tejas sent as a proof of common descent and i QUOTE

"Hence, the
strong results from the model selection tests provide a
firm logical basis for relying on the inference from
sequence similarity to homology as a general principle"
Homology : assumption that similarity is due to common descent

The whole argument meant for homology goes as follows :

-You assume that similarity is due to common descent which is an assumption (every evolutionist ever)

- you observe genetic similarities with that underlying assumption

- you conclude that similarity is due to common descent

That's called a circular argument obvious ignoramuses wouldn't get that


I have all the right to reject something that is fundamentally based on speculations and assumptions no matter what evidence is used to narrow the similitude

You can gas light reality into taking assumptions as even remotely near to fact hope your delusions do good to you

Be the APE you are so ardently defending


But don't scurry away like a rat come back and prove that Quran gets the embryology wrong

Almost like you ignored my point and just went on a gishgallop rampage.

Have fun denying reality if that fulfills you

 

[uyuu]

Why are there vestigial structures then? Or all kinds of various imperfections throughout the animal kingdom (us included)?

There is no perfect design. Evolution just brings forth what works and what can survive as populations

Choosing between dominantly functional entire organism to support deliberate design (creation) over evolution

vs

minor vestigial structure to support evolution over deliberate design (creation)

...is somewhat easy for me, since some overpowered god can always choose to make a mistake/imperfection, but evolution can't choose anything in any phases, so it just doesnt make much sense for me.

 

[Zenos7]

Choosing between dominantly functional entire organism to support deliberate design (creation) over evolution

vs

minor vestigial structure to support evolution over deliberate design (creation)

...is somewhat easy for me, since some overpowered god can always choose to make a mistake/imperfection, but evolution can't choose anything in any phases, so it just doesnt make much sense for me.

Evolution doesnt choose anything?!

And lul at "minor vestigial structure"
Thats one way to deflect from the countless imperfections in nature.

And functioning organisms dont support creation over evolution anyway.

 

[uyuu]

Evolution doesnt choose anything?!

And lul at "minor vestigial structure"
Thats one way to deflect from the countless imperfections in nature.

And functioning organisms dont support creation over evolution anyway.

No, evolution doesnt choose anything, creation does.

Countless imperfections is viewed due to the existing standardised perfection. So yeah perfection/functional/survivability dominates over them. That do support creation over evolution.

 

[Zenos7]

No, evolution doesnt choose anything, creation does.

Countless imperfections is viewed due to the existing standardised perfection. So yeah perfection/functional/survivability dominates over them. That do support creation over evolution.

There is nothing supporting creation over evolution.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

creation does.

Yeah god is planting all this evolution evidence everywhere to mislead us, amirite?

 

[Toby D. Dog]

There is nothing supporting creation over evolution.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Yeah god is planting all this evolution evidence everywhere to mislead us, amirite?

They’re tfg, Let them believe whatever they want.

 

[Zenos7]

They’re tfg, Let them believe whatever they want.

Tfg?

 

[Toby D. Dog]

Tfg?

Too far gone.

 

[uyuu]

There is nothing supporting creation over evolution.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Yeah god is planting all this evolution evidence everywhere to mislead us, amirite?

Non-functional bodyparts are not evidence of evolution. There is nothing supporting evolution over creation. To prove evolution, you have to show simple stuff being formed coincidentally. Like cars being formed by throwing carbon molecules randomly around etc over time.

 

[BleakAsh]

Almost like you ignored my point and just went on a gishgallop rampage.

Have fun denying reality if that fulfills you

wgere did i ignore anything

I have been reiterating you to provide evidence where there are no fundamental assumptions involved in your metric you have been scurrying away like a loser and haven't even mentioned embryology or wven dared rebuked it something you yourself brought up

You're the one who needa a reality check mate
You love being an Ape based off of probabilistic framework thats your retardation not ours

Low it

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

There is nothing supporting creation over evolution.

"i am ignorant and i choose to be blind"

Yeah god is planting all this evolution evidence everywhere to mislead us, amirite?

"Omg Look at these retroviruses found in the same places I'm gonna ignore where all the probabilities are are base in nitpicked attributes and compare them and throw the differences down the dump and not realize that its base on the assumption of homology "
Based on an assumption that similarity leads to common descent.

Its an illogical argument

You forming evidence over an assumption doesn't make the assumption correct

Ofc a dense brick like you wouldn't get that that is why Scientists still call it a HYPOTHESIS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS


:holdthisl:

 

[Zenos7]

Non-functional bodyparts are not evidence of evolution. There is nothing supporting evolution over creation. To prove evolution, you have to show simple stuff being formed coincidentally. Like cars being formed by throwing carbon molecules randomly around etc over time.

Basically all of biology is evidence for evolution lmao.

And well no, that last statement is just lame ass creationist talk that stems from not understanding evolution at all. No surprise there tho

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

wgere did i ignore anything

I have been reiterating you to provide evidence where there are no fundamental assumptions involved in your metric you have been scurrying away like a loser and haven't even mentioned embryology or wven dared rebuked it something you yourself brought up

You're the one who needa a reality check mate
You love being an Ape based off of probabilistic framework thats your retardation not ours

Low it

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

"i am ignorant and i choose to be blind"



"Omg Look at these retroviruses found in the same places I'm gonna ignore where all the probabilities are are base in nitpicked attributes and compare them and throw the differences down the dump and not realize that its base on the assumption of homology "
Based on an assumption that similarity leads to common descent.

Its an illogical argument

You forming evidence over an assumption doesn't make the assumption correct

Ofc a dense brick like you wouldn't get that that is why Scientists still call it a HYPOTHESIS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS


:holdthisl:

ERVs have nothing to do with homology. But yeah im the ignorant one.

Religious nutjobs questioning evolution always boils down to strawmanning and misconceptions about evolution.

And yall have demonstrated that extremely well in this thread.

So yeah, have fun denying reality

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Too far gone.

Yeah i guess. Some at least tried to twist evolution and not outright deny it

 

[BleakAsh]

Too far gone.

When people like you are mere by standards don't even try to engage in academic debate and like to pepper from the sidelines it really shows your standards

Definitely sometlone who has inherited Ape genes

ERVs have nothing to do with homology. But yeah im the ignorant one.

you are the ignorant and the dim-witted one
Homology is the underlying assumption that "omg WE HAVE PINNED DOWN A SIMILARITY IT MUST BE DUE TO COMMON ANCESTRY"

This is the assumption of homology which you clearly are oblivious of

You haven't addressed why only we have
Alzhimers and no one on earth has it except us


keep self deluding youself Ape-kun

Religious nutjobs questioning evolution always boils down to strawmanning and misconceptions about evolution.

And yall have demonstrated that extremely well in this thread.

So yeah, have fun denying reality

This clearly comes form miniscule intellect and ego.

Muslims have all the right to be lofty when people like you who first challenge a subject and then scurry away in your bills when faced with reality

Again prove how Quran got the embryology wrong

Your credibility is hitting rock bottom only think glaring is you better being an intellectual coward

 

[uyuu]

Basically all of biology is evidence for evolution lmao.

And well no, that last statement is just lame ass creationist talk that stems from not understanding evolution at all. No surprise there tho

"All of biology is evidence for random disaster stuff happening over millions of years" well you're free to prove spend millions of years of mixing random food and minerals and stuff together and hope that the mold will create an animal or something.

 

[Zenos7]

"All of biology is evidence for random disaster stuff happening over millions of years" well you're free to prove spend millions of years of mixing random food and minerals and stuff together and hope that the mold will create an animal or something.

Yes. All relevant fields of biology support evolution lmao. Yall can deny reality, doesnt change it though

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

self deluding youself Ape-kun

This is super ironic considering i said id rather have it different as well before. But carefully reading isnt important i guess.

The quran says the embryo forms bones and then the bones are covered with flesh. Thats just wrong and there is plenty more anti-scientific nonsense in the quran.

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

Your credibility is hitting rock bottom only think glaring is you better being an intellectual coward

Im not the one denying one of the most well attested aspects of science here. I think my credibility is just fine

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

you are the ignorant and the dim-witted one
Homology is the underlying assumption that "omg WE HAVE PINNED DOWN A SIMILARITY IT MUST BE DUE TO COMMON ANCESTRY"

ERVs are still not about homology lmfao.

You are not putting any effort into this. Just regurgitating the same old debunked gish gallop nonsense thats been around for ages

 

[BleakAsh]

"All of biology is evidence for random disaster stuff happening over millions of years" well you're free to prove spend millions of years of mixing random food and minerals and stuff together and hope that the mold will create an animal or something.

They will blame it on natrual selection on this minerals LOL

and natrual selection itself is a highly contentious topic in the field of Philosophy pf science and evolution

The whole Human - Ape ancestry is a thousand uear old assumptions of Indus hindus and greeks that we sgare a common ancestor with primates or chimps..

This is an assumption of homology whivh hasn't been prove because we have a counter assumption called homoplacy which are observations where similarity is not due to common descent.

And darwin came in and gave the Hindu-greeks mechanism for this assumption which is NATRUAL SELECTION which has A whole seperate set of assumptions

Any data of comparison is based on these assumptions and to think they reflect reality is delusional

Which is what people like @Zenos7 @Toby D. Dog @Admiral Maynard @Chrolette Horchata are

 

[Zenos7]

Philosophy pf science

Post automatically merged: Mar 21, 2023

This is an assumption of homology whivh hasn't been prove because we have a counter assumption called homoplacy which are observations where similarity is not due to common descent.

Thats analogy and biologists dont say each time there is sinilarity that its homology.

Just further showing how little you understand of evolution

 

[Krusher1357]

Is this a fucking sad joke?