• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Challenge To All Creationists

Reggie Miller

Well-Known Member
Hi, I'm Reggie Miller, the master of ignore and retort.

Since your game is to ignore questions put to you in favor of asking your own, why should I care what you ask? As for why you should listen to me, it's because you could learn something if you pay attention instead of playing posting games. But I'm not holding my breath, so proceed as you wish. :rolleyes:


.

You got nothing, man. I haven't seen you post anything to support your point of view except a bunch of nonsense easily refuted, which I have done.

Face it if you don't already know it because I know you won't admit it.
You don't believe in God because you just don't want to. It's just that simple. Nothing more, nothing less.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
You missed the part right after that where he goes on to explain how the eye could have evolved. Oopsy.

To bad all he offered was opinions, no real evidence, let alone scientific evidence. It is scientifically impossible for an eye to develop from a single cell. Just as it is impossible for bones to develop from a single cell. If the TOE wants to advance its case , the need to abandon the guess as to what first life was. They don' know and they don't know what it evolved into.

This is why quote mining is a misleading waste of time.

Only if the quote is not true. That is the excuse those who can't refute the quote use


"To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.

First of all natural selection cannot be proved. Second, there is no scientific way an optic nerve can develop from light hitting it. You also started with an imperfect eye. How did this imperfect eye develop?

In searching for the gradations through which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal progenitors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced to look to other species and genera of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted in an unaltered or little altered condition. But the state of the same organ in distinct classes may incidentally throw light on the steps by which it has been perfected.

You can't look to other species support your remark. Eyes do not develop from other species with eyes.

The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision, without any nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by the author just quoted, with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most important step towards the formation of a true, picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed on it. ... "


http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=side&itemID=F401&pageseq=173[/QUOTE]

If you think the optic nerve is simple, you need a refresher course in basic biology. You want us to start in the middle, you need to go back to the TOE's guess of what the first life was and explain how a single cell can become something other than a cell.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
First of all natural selection cannot be proved. Second, there is no scientific way an optic nerve can develop from light hitting it. You also started with an imperfect eye. How did this imperfect eye develop?

Why people want so badly to debate the limited nature of vertebrate eyes, or why they see them as this miracle of existence, I'll never understand.

But, regardless...

Intrinsically photosensitive retinal ganglion cells - Wikipedia
EvolutionEYE.gif

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
Eye Evolution
The Evolution of Vertebrate Eyes
Parietal eye - Wikipedia
Visual Processing: Eye and Retina (Section 2, Chapter 14) Neuroscience Online: An Electronic Textbook for the Neurosciences | Department of Neurobiology and Anatomy - The University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Evolution of the vertebrate eye: opsins, photoreceptors, retina and eye cup

chiton-eyes.jpg

Xenophilia (True Strange Stuff): Primitive Sea Creature Sports Eyes Made of Rock
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
To bad all he offered was opinions, no real evidence, let alone scientific evidence. It is scientifically impossible for an eye to develop from a single cell. Just as it is impossible for bones to develop from a single cell. If the TOE wants to advance its case , the need to abandon the guess as to what first life was. They don' know and they don't know what it evolved into.
Keep reading. He gives several examples. Not to mention all the study that has produced mountains of evidence over the last 150+ years.

There are all kinds of organisms alive today that display all manner of gradations that have been posited in the evolution of the eye.

I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say is impossible or how you can make such a claim.

New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors. - PubMed - NCBI
Eye Evolution


Only if the quote is not true. That is the excuse those who can't refute the quote use
Providing only half of the quotation makes it untrue and misleading. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic that for some reason is found quite often on creationist websites.


First of all natural selection cannot be proved. Second, there is no scientific way an optic nerve can develop from light hitting it. You also started with an imperfect eye. How did this imperfect eye develop?
Proofs are for math. Science doesn't deal in proofs.

Natural selection is demonstrable.

You can't look to other species support your remark. Ey
es do not develop from other species with eyes.
Of course you can and of course they do.
The simplest organ which can be called an eye consists of an optic nerve, surrounded by pigment-cells and covered by translucent skin, but without any lens or other refractive body. We may, however, according to M. Jourdain, descend even a step lower and find aggregates of pigment-cells, apparently serving as organs of vision, without any nerves, and resting merely on sarcodic tissue. Eyes of the above simple nature are not capable of distinct vision, and serve only to distinguish light from darkness. In certain star-fishes, small depressions in the layer of pigment which surrounds the nerve are filled, as described by the author just quoted, with transparent gelatinous matter, projecting with a convex surface, like the cornea in the higher animals. He suggests that this serves not to form an image, but only to concentrate the luminous rays and render their perception more easy. In this concentration of the rays we gain the first and by far the most important step towards the formation of a true, picture-forming eye; for we have only to place the naked extremity of the optic nerve, which in some of the lower animals lies deeply buried in the body, and in some near the surface, at the right distance from the concentrating apparatus, and an image will be formed on it. ... "



If you think the optic nerve is simple, you need a refresher course in basic biology. You want us to start in the middle, you need to go back to the TOE's guess of what the first life was and explain how a single cell can become something other than a cell.
Nobody has to do any such thing.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Pictures with no science linkage is not evidence. You don't understand because you don't understand genetics. That is obvious by thinking an eye can be made from a rock.
I'd suggest looking at the post again, because it is chock full of "science linkage."
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
Keep reading. He gives several examples. Not to mention all the study that has produced mountains of evidence over the last 150+ years.

Then that will make it easy for you to post some of it. The example given were not evicdence.

There are all kinds of organisms alive today that display all manner of gradations that have been posited in the evolution of the eye.

No there isn't.

I have no idea what it is that you're trying to say is impossible or how you can make such a claim.

It is impossible for an offspring to have a characteristic that is not in the gene pol of the parents.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/

Perspectives is no evidednce.

Providing only half of the quotation makes it untrue and misleading. Quote mining is a dishonest tactic that for some reason is found quite often on creationist websites.

When evolutionist can't prove their point, they criticize the quote they can't refute.


Proofs are for math. Science doesn't deal in proofs.

What a low view of science you have. Real science proves/disproves theories. Science has proved there is more than one type of blood and that can't be falsified. The can also prove what type you have. They can prove if you get the wrong type you will die. Check the Nobel prizes given. They do not offer that prize for opinions.

Natural selection is demonstrable.

Talk is cheap;---demonstrate it.

Of course you can and of course they do.
Nobody has to do any such thing.

:)
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Pictures with no science linkage is not evidence. You don't understand because you don't understand genetics. That is obvious by thinking an eye can be made from a rock.

"Like other chitons, these creatures have flat shells made of eight separate plates with hundreds of tiny lenses on the surface covering clusters of light-sensitive cells beneath."

"The team realized in a lab experiment that the animal's lenses were made of aragonite (calcium carbonate), rather than proteins like other biological lenses. Then, the duo placed the chitons on a slate slab and as soon as the animal lifted part of its body to breathe, the researchers showed them either a black disk of varying sizes or a corresponding gray slide that blocked the same amount of light. The objects were held just above the chitons.

The blocked light got no response, but when the hovering disk at least an inch (3 cm) or larger came into view the chitons clamped down.

Because the chitons responded to the larger disks and not the gray slides, they seem to be seeing the disk and not simply responding to a change in light, said University of Sussex biologist Michael Land, an expert on animal vision who was not involved in the research. But it's not yet clear if they respond only to the removal of light by the disk as opposed to added light.

The experiments also suggested the eyes had similar abilities in both water and air, suggesting the chiton could see above and below the water.

The results of the chiton study will appear in the April 26 Current Biology."
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
"Like other chitons, these creatures have flat shells made of eight separate plates with hundreds of tiny lenses on the surface covering clusters of light-sensitive cells beneath."

So what? That is not evidence those characteristics developed into eyes. Of course yu major problem is explaining how a single celled something with no eye and no need for eyes ever produced a kid with the things you just mentioned.

"The team realized in a lab experiment that the animal's lenses were made of aragonite (calcium carbonate), rather than proteins like other biological lenses. Then, the duo placed the chitons on a slate slab and as soon as the animal lifted part of its body to breathe, the researchers showed them either a black disk of varying sizes or a corresponding gray slide that blocked the same amount of light. The objects were held just above the chitons.

The blocked light got no response, but when the hovering disk at least an inch (3 cm) or larger came into view the chitons clamped down.

Because the chitons responded to the larger disks and not the gray slides, they seem to be seeing the disk and not simply responding to a change in light, said University of Sussex biologist Michael Land, an expert on animal vision who was not involved in the research. But it's not yet clear if they respond only to the removal of light by the disk as opposed to added light.

Irrelevant. That is not evidence that those characteristics ever became anything other than what the were at that time.

The experiments also suggested the eyes had similar abilities in both water and air, suggesting the chiton could see above and below the water.

"Suggested" means they don't know.

The results of the chiton study will appear in the April 26 Current Biology."

Wonderful. When you read it, how about cutting an pasting. the evidence they suggested.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Then that will make it easy for you to post some of it. The example given were not evicdence.

I literally just did that.

Darwin gave specific examples as well. You should have kept reading.

No there isn't.

In fact, there are.

“Eyes most likely evolved from simple to complex through a gradual series of tiny steps. Piecing together the sequence of eye evolution is challenging, and we don't know the sequence of steps that led to every modern eye. But we do know that modern animal eyes come in many varieties, spanning a continuum from the simplest to the most complex. This demonstrates that all types of eyes are useful, and that eyes of intermediate complexity could also have formed as steps in the evolution of complex eyes.”
Eye Evolution


“All eyes, in all their wonderful variety, share an underlying unity in the genes used to build them. By tracing the history of these shared genes, scientists uncovering the steps by which complex eyes have evolved through a series of intermediate steps.”
How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences


How Long Would The Fish Eye Take To Evolve?
The Evolution of Organ Systems


It is impossible for an offspring to have a characteristic that is not in the gene pol of the parents.

And ... ??

Perspectives is no evidednce.

Then you have no idea what evidence is. Try reading beyond just the title.

When evolutionist can't prove their point, they criticize the quote they can't refute.

When creationists quote mine, I will point it out. It happens much more than it should and I always see them plastered all over creationist websites. It's embarrassing for you guys.

Not to mention dishonest. What a shame creationists can't make a point without misrepresenting other people's positions.

Don’t resort to dishonest tactics if you don’t want to be called out on them.

What a low view of science you have. Real science proves/disproves theories. Science has proved there is more than one type of blood and that can't be falsified. The can also prove what type you have. They can prove if you get the wrong type you will die. Check the Nobel prizes given. They do not offer that prize for opinions.
I have a realistic and informed view of science.

No, science doesn’t deal in proofs. That’s what math is for. Science deals in probabilities. The evidence either supports or falsifies a theory. And there’s nothing higher than a scientific theory. It’s not like scientific theories graduate into proofs one day or something. They always remain theories, unless of course, they’re falsified.

Talk is cheap;---demonstrate it.

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
I literally just did that.

Darwin gave specific examples as well. You should have kept reading.

Scientific examples include HOW it happened. Just saying it happened is not science, it is speculation.

In fact, there are.

“Eyes most likely evolved from simple to complex through a gradual series of tiny steps. Piecing together the sequence of eye evolution is challenging, and we don't know the sequence of steps that led to every modern eye. But we do know that modern animal eyes come in many varieties, spanning a continuum from the simplest to the most complex. This demonstrates that all types of eyes are useful, and that eyes of intermediate complexity could also have formed as steps in the evolution of complex eyes.”
Eye Evolution
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/selection/eye/

When you say "most likely." that is an admission you don't know. There is no genetic path for a single cell to ever become anything other than another cell, much less eventually becoming something as complex as an eye.

“All eyes, in all their wonderful variety, share an underlying unity in the genes used to build them. By tracing the history of these shared genes, scientists uncovering the steps by which complex eyes have evolved through a series of intermediate steps.”
How the Eye Evolved | The New York Academy of Sciences
http://www.nyas.org/publications/detail.aspx?cid=93b487b2-153a-4630-9fb2-5679a061fff7

Can you explain why the first life form that had an eye for its survival, could be resonsible for an eye it did not need?


https://books.google.ca/books?id=ii...hotosensitive cell in living organism&f=false

Because evo links NEVER include evidence, I have quit reading them. Feel free to cut and past anything they provide as evidence. Take you lunch, you will be looking a long time.


And ... ??



Then you have no idea what evidence is. Try reading beyond just the title.

To date you have not presented any evidence, only speculation. Evidently you don't know what it is.



When creationists quote mine, I will point it out. It happens much more than it should and I always see them plastered all over creationist websites. It's embarrassing for you guys.

When evos complaining about mine quoting, and their is nothing wrong with doing that, it is because they can't make their case and the quote exposes that.

Not to mention dishonest. What a shame creationists can't make a point without misrepresenting other people's positions.

That is really amusing since you have just posted some links. IMO, that is what is dishonest.

Don’t resort to dishonest tactics if you don’t want to be called out on them.

I hate to burst your bubble, actually I enjoy bursting your bubble. I couldn't care less about what you do.

I have a realistic and informed view of science.

Wonderful. Explain how a life form with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, eve had a kid with bones. If you say mutations or natural selection, that will assure me you have no clue about science.

No, science doesn’t deal in proofs. That’s what math is for. Science deals in probabilities. The evidence either supports or falsifies a theory. And there’s nothing higher than a scientific theory. It’s not like scientific theories graduate into proofs one day or something. They always remain theories, unless of course, they’re falsified.

That statement alone proves your ignorance of science. It points to the last nail in the evo coffin. Real science prove/disproves theories. That is why after 100+ years, evolution is still rightly called a theory. Is there more than one blood type? How do we know that? Can it be falsified? Can science prove what type you have?

To say scientific theory is higher than what science is proven, is absurd and another indication you don't understand science. That there is more than one blood type is no longer a theory.



I have put on my prophecy hat and without reading that link I predict it will not have one piece of scientific evidence. Prove me wrong and cut and past what they offer as evidence, if any.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Evolution without Creation IS abiogenesis. There is no need to attempt to lecture me.
"No need?"

No, I think you need to understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is about understanding how living matters can be made from non-living matters.

Evolution, on the other hand, the offspring required the genes of parents to be pass on, from one generation to the next, and so on, and trying to determine and understand why or how they are different.

In another word, evolution is more concerned with biodiversity, hence the "evolving", the "adapting". Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not interested in biodiversity.

And btw. The whole exercise of this thread, is for creationists to explain how creationism is "true", without arguing against or using evolution...

...which you have failed to do on both counts.
 

omega2xx

Well-Known Member
"No need?"

No, I think you need to understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is about understanding how living matters can be made from non-living matters.

Evolution, on the other hand, the offspring required the genes of parents to be pass on, from one generation to the next, and so on, and trying to determine and understand why or how they are different.

In another word, evolution is more concerned with biodiversity, hence the "evolving", the "adapting". Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is not interested in biodiversity.

And btw. The whole exercise of this thread, is for creationists to explain how creationism is "true", without arguing against or using evolution...

...which you have failed to do on both counts.

Actually it is very simple. Show where real science refutes evolution;

1. Matter, energy and life can't produce itself out of nothing. Even a cave man can understand that.
2. If you don't know what the first life for was, you can't tell what it became later.
3. If a characteristic is not in the gene pool of the parents, they will never had a kid with that characteristic. So even the wild guess of what the life for was correct, it had no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, Therefore it could not have a kid with bones. IOW the nose and legs of a dog-like land animal could never produce a kid with a blowhole and fins.

Then you take what can be proven---plant some corn and in about i90 days, not will you ALWAYS get not only corn, you will get the exact same variety you planted. That seem a lot like "after their kind" doesn't it?

The Bible can prove more in 1 chapter than the TOE has proved in 100+ years.

So why don't you explain the origin of matter, energy and life. Just make sure you include the scientific evidence to support what you say. Otherwise I will have to remind you that what you believe, you accept by faith alone.
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Scientific examples include HOW it happened. Just saying it happened is not science, it is speculation.
You mean like this:
The involvement of Pax6 and six1 and six3 genes, which encode highly conserved transcription factors, in the genetic control of eye development in organisms ranging from planarians to humans argues strongly for a monophyletic origin of the eye.

Because transcription factors can control the expression of any target gene provided it contains the appropriate gene regulatory elements, the conservation of the genetic control of eye development by Pax6 among all bilaterian animals is not due to functional constraints but a consequence of its evolutionary history.

The prototypic eyes postulated by Darwin to consist of two cells only, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell, were accidentally controlled by Pax6 and the subsequent evolution of the various eye types occurred by building onto this original genetic program. A hypothesis of intercalary evolution is proposed that assumes that the eye morphogenetic pathway is progressively modified by intercalation of genes between the master control genes on the top of the hierarchy and the structural genes like rhodopsin at the bottom.

The recruitment of novel genes into the eye morphogenetic pathway can be due to at least two different genetic mechanisms, gene duplication and enhancer fusion.In tracing back the evolution of eyes beyond bilaterians, we find highly developed eyes in some box-jellyfish as well as in some Hydrozoans. In Hydrozoans the same orthologous six genes (six1 and six3) are required for eye regeneration as in planarians, and in the box jellyfish Tripedalia a pax B gene, which may be a precursor of Pax6, was found to be expressed in the eyes.”
New perspectives on eye development and the evolution of eyes and photoreceptors. - PubMed - NCBI

You didn’t even read it, did you?
When you say "most likely." that is an admission you don't know. There is no genetic path for a single cell to ever become anything other than another cell, much less eventually becoming something as complex as an eye.
No, it means that given the available evidence, it is the most likely explanation.

See above for your assertion about genetic pathways.

Can you explain why the first life form that had an eye for its survival, could be resonsible for an eye it did not need?

I don’t understand your question.

Being able to see anything at all, even if it’s only light, could be more advantageous than not being able to see anything at all. Is that what you’re asking?

Because evo links NEVER include evidence, I have quit reading them. Feel free to cut and past anything they provide as evidence. Take you lunch, you will be looking a long time.

I don’t know what an “evo link” is. But the links I have provided for you do in fact, contain evidence. As I think I just demonstrated above.

To date you have not presented any evidence, only speculation. Evidently you don't know what it is.
This is false. As demonstrated above.

When evos complaining about mine quoting, and their is nothing wrong with doing that, it is because they can't make their case and the quote exposes that.

I will point out quote mines no matter what the discussion. I don’t limit it to evolutionary quotations. I complain about quote mining when I see it because it’s dishonest. As I said. Your assertion is incorrect.

The only thing quote mines reveal is the dishonesty of the quote miner.

That is really amusing since you have just posted some links. IMO, that is what is dishonest.

So you are stating that it is dishonest to present evidence to back up one’s claims, but it is not dishonest to present partial quotations removed from their context in order to make them appear to say something that they don’t actually say?

I hate to burst your bubble, actually I enjoy bursting your bubble. I couldn't care less about what you do.
That’s great. You should care about what YOU do and how you present your arguments, which was my point.
 
Last edited:

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Wonderful. Explain how a life form with no bones, no need for bones and no gene for bones, eve had a kid with bones. If you say mutations or natural selection, that will assure me you have no clue about science.

Your question doesn’t make sense.

Here are some links to discussions on the evolution of bones that might help clarify and answer your question. Just so you are aware, the underlined names in brackets in the text provide links to other sources of evidence as well.

Where did bone come from?: An overview of its evolution
Evolution of the vertebrate skeleton: morphology, embryology, and development | Zoological Letters | Full Text

By the way, I was talking about having an informed and realistic view of the way science operates, it’s methodology and its terminology.

That statement alone proves your ignorance of science.

It reveals yours.

It points to the last nail in the evo coffin. Real science prove/disproves theories. That is why after 100+ years, evolution is still rightly called a theory. Is there more than one blood type? How do we know that? Can it be falsified? Can science prove what type you have?

To say scientific theory is higher than what science is proven, is absurd and another indication you don't understand science. That there is more than one blood type is no longer a theory.
I’m sorry, you are mistaken.

Evolution is fact and a scientific theory. Scientific theories are supported by evidence or they are not scientific theories. There are no proofs. I repeat, there are no proofs.

Evolution will always be called a theory. So will germ theory and cell theory. A scientific theory is the highest level of scientific achievement that can be reached. Evolution is so well evidenced that it is considered a scientific theory.

The formal scientific definition of a theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).

Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinements as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

…..

In science, a “fact” typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term “fact” to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions. “


https://www.nap.edu/read/11876/chapter/2#11

MISCONCEPTION: Science proves ideas.

CORRECTION: Journalists often write about "scientific proof" and some scientists talk about it, but in fact, the concept of proof — real, absolute proof — is not particularly scientific. Science is based on the principle that any idea, no matter how widely accepted today, could be overturned tomorrow if the evidence warranted it. Science accepts or rejects ideas based on the evidence; it does not prove or disprove them. To learn more about this, visit our page describing how science aims to build knowledge."

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10

You have no place telling anyone else that they are ignorant of scientific concepts when you haven’t grasped them yourself.

I have put on my prophecy hat and without reading that link I predict it will not have one piece of scientific evidence. Prove me wrong and cut and past what they offer as evidence, if any.
You should have just read it instead. Then you’d know that you’re wrong.

I’m sorry, I guess I’ve mistaken you for someone who cares about believing as many true things as possible, and about learning things and increasing their knowledge base. My bad.

“Evolutionary theory predicts that divergent natural selection will often have a key role in speciation. Working with sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus), Jeffrey McKinnon at the University of Wisconsin in Whitewater and his colleagues reported in 2004 that reproductive isolation can evolve as a by-product of selection on body size. This work provides a link between the build-up of reproductive isolation and the divergence of an ecologically important trait.

The study was done on an extraordinary geographical scale, involving mating trials between fish taken in Alaska, British Columbia, Iceland, the United Kingdom, Norway and Japan. It was underpinned by molecular genetic analyses that provided firm evidence that fish that have adapted to living in streams had evolved repeatedly from marine ancestors, or from fish that live in the ocean but return to fresh water to spawn. Such migratory populations in the study had larger bodies on average than did those living in streams. Individuals tended to mate with fish of a similar size, which accounts well for the reproductive isolation between different stream ecotypes and their close, seafaring neighbours.

Taking into account the evolutionary relationships, a comparison of the various types of stickleback, whether stream or marine, strongly supports the view that adaptation to different environments brings about reproductive isolation. The researchers’ experiments also confirmed the connection between size divergence and the build-up of reproductive isolation — although traits other than size also contribute to reproductive isolation to some extent.”

http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf[/quote]
 

gnostic

The Lost One
1. Matter, energy and life can't produce itself out of nothing. Even a cave man can understand that.
That's straw-man, omega2xx.

Evolution never state it create itself from "nothing".

Evolution required life to already exist, and with animals, genes are passed through reproduction, from parents to offspring.

Evolution is not about origin of first life. The origin of life is mainly the focus of abiogenesis, which is different to evolution. Evolution is focused in the area of biodiversity.

Clearly, your understanding is no better than that of cave man.

Natural Selection is about adaptation, where environment, such as climate, terrain, availability of food, etc, can affect the species.

At some point, tens of thousands of years ago, the brown bear species (Urus arctos), diverge because of the regions they were living. The brown bears that were living in colder regions, had to adapt, where trees don't grow, when ice sheets covered much of the northern regions of Europe, Asia and North America. But this Ice Age weren't as global as previous glacial era.

Those that remained in warmer regions remained as they were, but new species gradually arose from the brown bears, producing species that can survive in extreme cold, which we called polar bears (Ursus maritimus).

It is not just the white fur that make polar bears different from the brown bears, but the whiteness does help when hunting their prey, where they can hide among the ice. The polar bear developed fur (and hide) that's more water-proof and wind-proof than that of brown bear, so they can survive extreme cold, from wind or the sea they can swim. Brown bears cannot swim in sea.

Although, brown bear can swim in lakes or rivers, they preferred wading than swimming. I am sure you have seen documentaries of brown bears catching salmons; they do by wading, not swimming.

The polar bear's main source of food is sea-seals, which contained high fat contents. The polar bear has more fat than brown bear. If you remember your high school biology, body fat is what help animals insulate themselves from the cold. Because of the higher body fat in polar bears, they don't need to hibernate, like the brown bears, black bears and grizzly bears in the colder seasons.

The polar bears didn't come out of nowhere, omega. It is offshoot of the brown bears.

That's Evolution by Natural Selection at work. A biologist who focused on evolution between brown bears and polar bears would not need to know how life started billions of years ago; they would only need to trace back evidences that go back a couple of hundred thousand of years.

Another example is viruses. Virologists who study viruses and developed vaccines or antibiotics, would only focused viruses of this century and the last century (20th century), because it is not that cultured viruses several centuries or millennia. So virologists and vaccine researchers need solid understanding of evolution, via Natural Selection and Mutation. Vaccine being used, will make future strains of viruses resistant or immune to that viruses.

For you to say that there are no evidences, when it staring at you in the face, only demonstrated your ignorance, or worse, your dishonesty at ignoring or dismissing the evidences.

No, omega. You don't understand evolution and abiogenesis at all.

If you understand science (not just biology) at all, you would know that they rely on evidences to verify or refute explanation, not proof. Proof and evidence are different to both scientists and mathematicians.

And there are plenty of evidences to support evolution. Abiogenesis, on the other hand, is still relatively young theory, with not as much evidences as there are in evolution, but their focus are different.
 
Top