Then how do we disagree? Because it doesn't seem that we do.So here I don't agree.AronRa said:Again, no. I don't understand big bang cosmology, and what I know about it is that cosmologists are trying to explain it more than it explains anything. So I don't like big bang cosmology, and I don't necessarily "believe" it, but I must concede that it is still the best model we have, and I can't reject it because it works in certain applications, and because I don't have anything better to replace it with. When Lavoisier disproved phlogiston theory in 1777, it wasn't enough to say "I don't believe that". He disproved it with his own theory of oxygen.
I believe in the big bang as well, I have seen the evidence for it.
Before I read about the evidence, I didn't believe in it.
If an hypothesis can explain something, it's still doesn't mean it is consistent. If there is a fact that disproves the theory, it has a huge problem, and that's all I ask, to see the evidence, and to see it is actually consistent.
Then what part do you reject? Because there is nothing left. So far, you have already said you accept that evolution is a fact of population genetics, that every objection to it has always been irrational, and that the theory of evolution has been effectively proven by an overwhelming preponderance of evidence. As I already pointed out, all the mechanisms of evolution are contained within microevolution plus speciation. There are no evolutionary mechanisms beyond what you have already accepted, and you have accepted all of it. So it appears that your problem is not with any evolutionary process, but maybe with our system of classification? I still can't tell because you refuse to say.You said you accept microevolution plus speciation [macroevolution] so you've accepted evolution in totalNo. If I accept that speciation can occur, it does not mean I accept that pine trees and elephants are related (I'm joking of course).
Anyways, I still need to see the evidence step by step (because If it's not consistent, it's not an explanation at all).
And if evolution is true, and backed by so many evidence like you say, why is that a problem? No, I'm not convinced, is that it?
Are we done here? because if that's all you can show me (changes up to the possibility of speciation), sorry, I just can't accept that whole theory.
Someone who is interested in evidence would look at specifics, but you try to be as vague as possible, and ignore much of the evidence you're given.So for instance, the phylogeny challenge, are you gonna answer it as well? I don't think I've seen you do it.
• Is the short-tailed goanna related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas? And how do you know that?
• Are all Australian goannas related to each other and the African and Indonesian monitors? And how do you know that?
• Are today’s terrestrial varanids related to Cretaceous mosasaurs? And how do you know that?
• Are varanids related to any other anguimorphs including snakes? And how do you know that?
• Are anguimorphs also related to scincomorphs and geckos? And how do you know that?
• Are all scleroglossa related to iguanids and other squamates? And how do you know that?
• Are all of squamata related to each other and all other lepidosaurs? And how do you know that?
• Are lepidosaurs related to placodonts and plesiosaurs? And how do you know that?
• Are lepidosauromorphs related to archosaurs and other diapsids? And how do you know that?
• Are all diapsids related to anapsids or synapsid “reptiles” like dimetrodon? And how do you know that?
• Are all reptiles related to each other and all other amniotes? And how do you know that?
• Are all amniotes related to each other and all other tetrapods? And how do you know that?
• Are all tetrapods related to each other and all other vertebrates? And how do you know that?
And so on. Which of these are related? And how do you know that?
But your contention (which is still vague) is that the one thing you don't accept is some as-yet unidentified aspect of common ancestry, which is apparently related to our method of classification rather than your understanding of evolution. That's why I'm still asking you to answer the phylogeny challenge. I'm only asking you to point out where you think the problem is or why you think there is a problem. This is now the third time I've asked you this same question.No, you DO know. Earlier, you mentioned how I don't like philosophy. The reason being that I always see it misused to deny reality and make-believe some alternative fantasy instead. That's what you're doing now. My promise was to prove that biological evolution is the truest, best explanation there is for the origin of our species, and that it is the only explanation of biodiversity with either evidentiary support or scientific validity. I phrased it that way to contest Intelligent Design creationists trying to pretend as if their fantasy qualified as a theory. But you said you don't even have an alternative fantasy. So it's like arguing with a flat earther who doesn't understand that if they don't even have their own model, then they have no basis for contention. There is only the mainstream science, which you already totally accept (even if you don't adequately understand any of it) and there is literally no other possibility.Ok, sure.
so all the questions above^
my answer to all of them is "I don't know".
Remember that evidence is a body of objectively verifiable facts that are positively-indicative of, and/or exclusively concordant with only one available position or hypothesis over any other. You already accept that evolution happens and that it leads to speciation, and [importantly] there is no other mechanism that can do this. So given the question of whether the short-tailed goanna is related to the perentie and all other Australian goannas, you tried again to be evasive; you tried to flip it to answer with another question, "how do you know that?" Well, I'll tell you.
Varanoidea is a taxonomic superfamily of primitive, mildly venomous and powerful predatory lizards, including some that are large enough to be man-eaters. There are a couple dozen varanid species in Australia, including the two-meter parentie, the sand goanna, lace monitor, argus monitor, spiny-tailed monitor, short-tailed monitor, mangrove monitor, Spencer's goanna, the stripe-tailed goanna, and the massive seven meter-long giant extinct monitor known as Megalania. All of these are classified together because of a suite of shared diagnostic traits unifying them with a larger group of Varanids found in Africa and Asia too, as well as several more examples in the fossil record.
Although these are all different species, they are what creationists would universally classify as the same "kind" because they are so similar to each other. You already accept evolution as a mechanism that can and does produce this sort of variation, and—importantly—there is no other way these monitors could be related; nor is there any way they could be unrelated.
Morpholigical evidence should be enough, especially when corroborated by fossil evidence too, but runaway skeptics will always demand more than any reasonable person would. Fortunately, we also have genetic evidence, as we now do for every extant clade in the biosphere. This includes mtDNA which can be used to trace a phylogenetic family tree complete with molecular clock estimates which typically match the fossil evidence very closely.
Japan's largest platform for academic e-journals: J-STAGE is a full text database for reviewed academic papers published by Japanese societieswww.jstage.jst.go.jp
Before we move on to the rest of these categories listed above, do you understand and accept that this collection of evidence that you didn't ask for but said you wanted to see proves at least the first and second category questions I just posed to you?