Evolution of what?

[Eli G]

If someone dedicated themselves to deleting the posts that say nothing about the reasoning presented, such as those that only contain fallacies, disqualifications and other weeds, how little would be left alive here!

 

[Tomef]

Eli is just trolling, winking smiley and all.
I feel for those who are thereby embarrassed by this (religious?) behavior.

I thought the same, but I dunno, this kind of elective dumbness is a real thing. Bit of a puzzler.

 

[Tomef]

reasoning

I fear you are using that word a bit too ambitiously. You might say that reasoning is something you aspire to, but that you haven’t quite started working on yet. Sort of like buying some paintbrushes and sticking them in the cupboard, then calling that ‘house-painting’.

 

[Tomef]

Wow!

That’s a very expensive fly!

Still just a wheelbarrow.

 

[Eli G]

Isn't it true that the age of the entire universe would not be enough for a supposed chain evolution from a single-celled organism to a human?

Let someone make the chain, and count the necessary years. A useful exercise for those who have nothing of value to say or do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Isn't it true that the age of the entire universe would not be enough for a supposed chain evolution from a single-celled organism to a human?

Apparently not. You have no valid reason to assume that the age of the earth - some 4.5 billion years - wasn't enough time.

But do you know what wasn't enough time for the world around us including man and the beasts to form? Six days.

Let someone make the chain, and count the necessary years.

Sort of like the YEC's way of dating the earth - take the chain from Adam to Jesus and count the necessary years for that many generations to pass?

That's not how it works in evolutionary science. There's no way to decide in advance how long such a process requires. Instead, one collects physical evidence and does radiometric dating. In this case, we determine how old the earth was when the first life appeared on it. If it were one billion years old, then that's how long it took for those creatures to evolve into man and the remainder of the extant tree of life. If it were half or twice that, then that's how long it took.

 

[Eli G]

Although evolutionists and other scientists realize the genetic similarity of so many species that are evidently different from each other, they still do not realize how impressive is this fact.

I remember they used to make similar comparisons between embryos in some older books about that doctrine.

When I analyze those genetic similarities that do not seem to determine the factual differences in shape, form, etc, I have nothing left but to praise the Creator for that display of wisdom and power.

 

[Eli G]

... take the chain from Adam to Jesus and count the necessary years for that many generations to pass?

I have done that. An analytical Biblical Chronology shows Adam was created 4025/6 B.C.

That's not how it works in evolutionary science. ...

Really?

Isn't evolutionary doctrine all about a chain composed of supposed new species originating from different previous species?

You argue for vice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Although evolutionists and other scientists realize the genetic similarity of so many species that are evidently different from each other, they still do not realize how impressive is this fact.

I remember they used to make similar comparisons between embryos in some older books about that doctrine.

When I analyze those genetic similarities that do not seem to determine the factual differences in shape, form, etc, I have nothing left but to praise the Creator for that display of wisdom and power.

As usual you are fractally wrong. You really should try to learn the basics of science. There are at least five independent lines of evidence that support evolution. This is called "consilience". When that occurs in science or in a court of law that is thought to be very strong evidence.

For example one man shoots another in a city. In an open area visible from multiple angles by multiple people. People at different buildings all describe the same thing. What the accused was wearing. What the victim was wearing and the order of events. These people would all be independent of each other as a result we have the start of strong consilience. Now we add to that that some people videoed at least part of the interchange. That we found the killer's DNA on the murder weapon. That there was a long grudge between the two. More independent sources that all agree on the same thing. That is consilience. You can be very sure that you have the right man. We see the same thing in the theory of evolution. Endless evidence that only supports the theory of evolution.

 

[Eli G]

If the amount of lines counts, there are a lot more than just "five independent lines of evidence" that support the existence of the Creator.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If the amount of lines counts, there are a lot more than just "five independent lines of evidence" that support the existence of the Creator.

I do not think so. In fact I do not think that there are any scientific lines of evidence that support a creator. But then you probably do not understand the concept of evidence and are likely afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence.

A lot of people mistake ad hoc arguments as being "evidence".

 

[Pogo]

As usual you are fractally wrong. You really should try to learn the basics of science. There are at least five independent lines of evidence that support evolution. This is called "consilience". When that occurs in science or in a court of law that is thought to be very strong evidence.

For example one man shoots another in a city. In an open area visible from multiple angles by multiple people. People at different buildings all describe the same thing. What the accused was wearing. What the victim was wearing and the order of events. These people would all be independent of each other as a result we have the start of strong consilience. Now we add to that that some people videoed at least part of the interchange. That we found the killer's DNA on the murder weapon. That there was a long grudge between the two. More independent sources that all agree on the same thing. That is consilience. You can be very sure that you have the right man. We see the same thing in the theory of evolution. Endless evidence that only supports the theory of evolution.

Remember you are dealing with a conspiracy theorist, everything is lies and he/she knows the real magic behind it.

 

[Eli G]

... There's no way to decide in advance how long such a process requires. Instead, one collects physical evidence and does radiometric dating. In this case, we determine how old the earth was when the first life appeared on it. If it were one billion years old, then that's how long it took for those creatures to evolve into man and the remainder of the extant tree of life. If it were half or twice that, then that's how long it took.

That is an interesting answer.

You think that if you draw a direct line between the first living organism and the human being, placing between them the entire supposed chain of species or "uncles and aunts of the intermediate species" (that have never been discovered), and divide the total number of years that It is assumed from when this process supposedly began until modern man, you will have a number of years that can be considered reasonable for one species to become another for all of the steps?

PS: I don't know if the question is clear, but if you imagine this supposed chain of specimens of different species you will be able to visualize that theoretical process more clearly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is an interesting answer.

You think that if you draw a direct line between the first living organism and the human being, placing between them the entire supposed chain of species or "uncles and aunts of the intermediate species" (that have never been discovered), and divide the total number of years that It is assumed from when this process supposedly began until modern man, you will have a number of years that can be considered reasonable for one species to become another for all of the steps?

PS: I don't know if the question is clear, but if you imagine this supposed chain of specimens of different species you will be able to visualize that theoretical process more clearly.

Evolution is a parallel process. It is not a serial one so I do not see how there could be an error. Your post looks as if you ware trying to make it a serial one.

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

Some are satisfied with so little!!!

 

[Eli G]

No matter how many branches a family tree has, you can always draw a straight line between an individual and some specific remote ancestor. Also, with enough information, you could count the years between them. The same could be done if the evolution of species were a fact.

Again:

You think that if you draw a direct line between the first living organism and the human being, placing between them the entire supposed chain of species or "uncles and aunts of the intermediate species" (that have never been discovered), and divide the total number of years that It is assumed from when this process supposedly began until modern man, you will have a number of years that can be considered reasonable for one species to become another for all of the steps?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

Some are satisfied with so little!!!

Your question cannot be answered because it is poorly asked. Archaeopteryx is a dinosaur. Birds are dinosaurs. There is no such thing as a "complete bird"

Also transitional does not mean ancestral. It only means that the species was close to the line of descent. We cannot know for sure if any species was on the line of descent but we can see that they were at least closely related to it.

Do you want other examples of transitional fossils that led to birds? I can provide those if you ask.

 

[Eli G]

Is it not clear this question?

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No matter how many branches a family tree has, you can always draw a straight line between an individual and some specific remote ancestor. Also, with enough information, you could count the years between them. The same could be done if the evolution of species were a fact.

Again:

Really? What if you only had photographs and many generations were never photographed or the photos were lost? You could still no that there was a line of descent. You might be unsure of exactly how it went but you could still deduce that it existed.

Not having a complete line of descent is not evidence against evolution. It was never predicted that we would have such complete lines. What was predicted is that every fossil find would fit the theory of evolution and there are may ways that that could have been refuted if creationism was true. That is why the fossil record is scientific evidence for evolution and not for creationism. Creationists cannot come up with a model that accurately explains the evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it not clear this question?

Evolutionist say that archaeopteryx is a "transitional species" between dinosaurs and birds.

Which species was transitional between some complete dinosaur and Archeopteryx, and which was transitional between Archeopteryx and a complete bird?

Again, it does not make any sense. Archaeopteryx was a "complete dinosaur". Birds are "complete dinosaurs'.