alphaparticle Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 butero - There is an example of a specific prediction made, *by evolution* that was then used to make a medication, in this case an antivenin. Phylogenetic trees, it goes on to say, can explain why some people who are allergic to poison ivy have other specific reactions to other things, including mango. The actual reason for this has been discovered, in this case, and is not random. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 butero - There is an example of a specific prediction made, *by evolution* that was then used to make a medication, in this case an antivenin. Phylogenetic trees, it goes on to say, can explain why some people who are allergic to poison ivy have other specific reactions to other things, including mango. The actual reason for this has been discovered, in this case, and is not random. Explain the many more people that aren't allergic to both? They use animals all the time to test drugs on, and sometimes they are able to predict their safety to some degree based on those tests, but they don't always work. What a rat can handle, a human being cannot. In some instances they can, but in others they cannot. Humans can eat chocolate, but that is poison to dogs and cats. Dogs and cats can eat raw meat and not get sick, but human beings cannot. There are times where you can find common characteristics between humans and animals, but there are also many differences. And again, if both man and animal came from the ground, and are all flesh, they will have things in common. I just don't see anything here that would lead me to believe in evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alphaparticle Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,363 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 403 Days Won: 5 Joined: 08/01/2013 Status: Offline Author Share Posted December 3, 2013 butero - There is an example of a specific prediction made, *by evolution* that was then used to make a medication, in this case an antivenin. Phylogenetic trees, it goes on to say, can explain why some people who are allergic to poison ivy have other specific reactions to other things, including mango. The actual reason for this has been discovered, in this case, and is not random. Explain the many more people that aren't allergic to both? They use animals all the time to test drugs on, and sometimes they are able to predict their safety to some degree based on those tests, but they don't always work. What a rat can handle, a human being cannot. In some instances they can, but in others they cannot. Humans can eat chocolate, but that is poison to dogs and cats. Dogs and cats can eat raw meat and not get sick, but human beings cannot. There are times where you can find common characteristics between humans and animals, but there are also many differences. And again, if both man and animal came from the ground, and are all flesh, they will have things in common. I just don't see anything here that would lead me to believe in evolution. I'm not asking you to believe it. I think you've missed the point of the exercise here. In this case, there is a particular statistically significant linkage between people having an uncommon reaction (to mangoes) and having a more common one to poison ivy, and this particular one was explained using phylogenetic trees. The more significant part of the page in my estimation was the use of such trees to create effective medication. These trees implicitly assume evolution and use them *to make predictions*. Whenever a theory starts making predictions, I start to become convinced there is something important going on. This is but a small example of what I have in mind. What I am explaining to you is that there is a lot of evidence for evolution, whether you find it convincing or not, which leads many, including the vast vast majority of biologists, to consider it having occurred as a biological fact about the world. I think some people are a little too easily dismissive. Not only that, but it seems that many creationists who get into these discussions have deep misunderstanding about what evolution is and what it claims in the first place. As a result, I do not think most creationists effectively communicate with evolutionists (and, I would think the opposite is also true). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted December 3, 2013 Share Posted December 3, 2013 butero - There is an example of a specific prediction made, *by evolution* that was then used to make a medication, in this case an antivenin. Phylogenetic trees, it goes on to say, can explain why some people who are allergic to poison ivy have other specific reactions to other things, including mango. The actual reason for this has been discovered, in this case, and is not random. Explain the many more people that aren't allergic to both? They use animals all the time to test drugs on, and sometimes they are able to predict their safety to some degree based on those tests, but they don't always work. What a rat can handle, a human being cannot. In some instances they can, but in others they cannot. Humans can eat chocolate, but that is poison to dogs and cats. Dogs and cats can eat raw meat and not get sick, but human beings cannot. There are times where you can find common characteristics between humans and animals, but there are also many differences. And again, if both man and animal came from the ground, and are all flesh, they will have things in common. I just don't see anything here that would lead me to believe in evolution. I'm not asking you to believe it. I think you've missed the point of the exercise here. In this case, there is a particular statistically significant linkage between people having an uncommon reaction (to mangoes) and having a more common one to poison ivy, and this particular one was explained using phylogenetic trees. The more significant part of the page in my estimation was the use of such trees to create effective medication. These trees implicitly assume evolution and use them *to make predictions*. Whenever a theory starts making predictions, I start to become convinced there is something important going on. This is but a small example of what I have in mind. What I am explaining to you is that there is a lot of evidence for evolution, whether you find it convincing or not, which leads many, including the vast vast majority of biologists, to consider it having occurred as a biological fact about the world. I think some people are a little too easily dismissive. Not only that, but it seems that many creationists who get into these discussions have deep misunderstanding about what evolution is and what it claims in the first place. As a result, I do not think most creationists effectively communicate with evolutionists (and, I would think the opposite is also true). If you simply want to submit this as one small piece of evidence for evolution, fine. I would just look at a prediction like that as a lucky guess that happened to work out. Even the psychics make predictions that come true. Most don't, but some do, and you could take that 5 out of 100 correct predictions and use them as evidence there is something legitimate about the Psychic Friends or the Weekly World News psychics. I just don't see all this wealth of evidence for evolution, and I see no evidence that shows a gradual change from one species of animal to something completely different. The only thing I see is some similarities between everything, but that is easily explained by the fact we all come from the ground. Even so, I will accept it as you submitting evidence for evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Everyone knows black cows evolved so we could have chocolate milk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheCurseOfTheRodain Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 149 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 20 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2013 God said there is no evolution in Genesis; for He made everything and said it was good. And we were VERY good. Sickness and disease and thorns are not good - they end up in the Lake of Fire with the Devil and cancer is in the fossil record. So how can God say creation is good but then we see cancer in the fossil record which means there would have had to be a long time of death and suffering leading up to Adam, but God said it was all good, so by definition right there you know as a Believer, there is no such thing as evolution. Dinosaurs (or dragons in the Hebrew), co-existed with man by the way. Otherwise God would have been unjust to tell Job to go and look at the Behemoth and talk with him about the ferocity and abilities of the Leviathan (such as fire-breathing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted December 3, 2013 (edited) The creatures in Job could have been a bit more. . . mundane. The fossil record does not seem to indicate that humans coexisted. Richard Dawkins stated that if it could be proven man and dinosaurs coexisted, it would destroy evolution. Edited December 3, 2013 by gray wolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 599 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,321 Content Per Day: 7.55 Reputation: 28,076 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2013 Everyone knows black cows evolved so we could have chocolate milk! do the brown ones give us butterscotch??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gray wolf Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 28 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,046 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 194 Days Won: 2 Joined: 09/25/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/30/1960 Share Posted December 3, 2013 Yes. Isn't natural selection splendid???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ncn Posted December 3, 2013 Group: Graduated to Heaven Followers: 6 Topic Count: 406 Topics Per Day: 0.09 Content Count: 5,248 Content Per Day: 1.12 Reputation: 1,337 Days Won: 67 Joined: 08/07/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted December 3, 2013 Everyone knows black cows evolved so we could have chocolate milk! The things one learns on Worthy. I was led to believe that milk came in a bottle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts