Mark O wrote in reply to my questions about how to account for the abundant evidence of human evolution if we didn't evolve:
"If God does exist, and again I do not know that, and God is all powerful,
then it is "plausible" that God may enjoy screwing with our heads.
If you live your life thinking like that, why bother researching or debating anything? Such a God might constantly surround us with misleading evidence and perceptions, Instead of learning and building knowledge, it'd be impossible to trust anything. You might as well be running in circles. Come to think of it, that's what some of these exchanges seem to have become, ha.
"As I said before the evidence for human evolution is substantial
but incomplete. Until it is complete, evolution is a good working
theory to describe Human origins. At this point I would say more
Geesh, thanks for finally saying at least that much, but you give "ulling teeth" new meaning. But you're still not being very consistent if you accept that most creatures evolved, but question whether humans did,
since the fossil and DNA evidence for humans is richer than for most other organisms, and you accept that we are all related genetically.
"Some of my best friends are fish. As I said, we share DNA with, as
far as I know, every organic compound on this planet, we are from Earth
and we are connected and interconnected to her. We are in some way
related to everything in and on this planet.
If you accept that, then it seems silly to question whether we evolved.
"I accept evolution as definitive where the evidence is definitive.
As with the example of the dog I gave. The evidence that the dog evolved from a wolf is definitive. I do not know what the wolf evolved from.
Scientists do. We have quite a few fossil canines going back millions of years, and DNA evidence, which strongly indicates that dogs came from wolves, and modern wolves from prehistoric wolves, and those from earlier canines. So ironically, just as with humans, our knowledge of canine evolution is actually more robust than for most other oragnisms. Other than saving face at this point, I don't get why you seem so hung up on knowing every individual species along the lineage, when the DNA evidence clearly shows we all are related, barring the capricious God notion. But even there you're not being consistent. If God is going to fabricate fossil and DNA evidence for human evolution, he could as easily fabricate evidence for dog evolution (or dog breeding), which you say you accept. Not only could the evidence of dog evolution/breeding been a devine hoax, but maybe dogs themselves are figments of your imagination, or fragments of your breakfast. So why
even get out of bed?
By the way, dogs can interbreed with wolves (and coyotes) and produce fertile offspring. Likewise extant modern human races can breed with each other, and possibly did with Neandertals, even tho dogs, coyotes, and wolves are usually considered different species or subspecies, as are modern humans and Neanderthals. This raises the "species question" and leads to the point that only in creationist dogma are species or "kinds" fixed entities. In biology and paleontology, species are fluid and esoteric entities. When populations start to diverge due to geographic or reproductive isolation, and adaptation to new niches, they often can still interbreed to some extent, even as they are becoming more different, and do so less often or successfully. But any way you slice it, here is no reasonable way to escape the evidence that all life is related, and thus that we evolved and ultimately, share common ancestors. You seem to be fine with some kinds of scientific
evidence but not others, even when there is no logical reason for it.
"Just look at the words you used, I highlighted, to describe your evidence. This is why I think evolution is a good working theory.
If you're using "theory" in the scientific sense, you're right. But it's not just a "working one," (suggesting considerable douby) it's a very well established one, and thus a fact by any reasonable definition - just as continental drift, the shape of the earth, etc. are both scientific theories and facts. But if you're just being obtuse again, and intentionally confusing the scientific and common usages of words, then like Randy, I'm getting increasingly annoyed, but on the bright side, more sure than ever that I exist.