• 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!

Can you give me an observable evidence that Evolution is true?

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I've read into all of that and simply do not believe because I can not see it... I stand with the pre-2014 data and will not succumb to biologists who are more like fan fiction writers than scientist. It is the most rapidly changing field with delusions of grandeur unseen in real science such as physics.

it's likely you have more dolphin dna in you than you do neanderthal... they provide nothing for comparison.

If you "can not see it", then I have to assume you also don't believe in either God nor Jesus.

The case isn't closed... we didn't come from neanderthal, they are a sub-species. And take note of that when reading, terms like "our species" that doesn't mean "their species" (neanderthal)

Absurd, and we now know that your position is indeed absurd based on genome testing. But hey, you have the full right to ignore or even distort science and believe in any kind of tale you want to.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
if transmutation was fact... it would be before our eyes and crocodiles would be developing wings turning into birds.

Evolution doesn't stop and pause therefore remaining invisible to us. If transmutation was fact it could be observed in nature.

The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species : Robert Mackenzie Beverley : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Crocoduck1.jpg


Are you actually Kirk Cameron?
 
If you "can not see it", then I have to assume you also don't believe in either God nor Jesus.



Absurd, and we now know that your position is indeed absurd based on genome testing. But hey, you have the full right to ignore or even distort science and believe in any kind of tale you want to.

actually there's plenty of evidence of historical Jesus... whom I view as God.

boom boom tis :)

Letters of Herod and Pilate
 
Last edited:

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
actually there's plenty of evidence of historical Jesus... whom I view as God.

boom boom tis :)
I'm quite certain that the vast majority of scientists well know that the genome testing is reasonably accurate, but you don't believe them but instead believe in a small group of people writing 2000 years ago about Jesus. You do not know these people nor cannot tell with any certainty if they're telling the truth at all because it cannot be checked. And how about God?

I'm not an atheist, but I do find the YEC position to be so nonsensical because it has to maintain its position by turning a blind eye to both science and common sense.
 
I'm quite certain that the vast majority of scientists well know that the genome testing is reasonably accurate, but you don't believe them but instead believe in a small group of people writing 2000 years ago about Jesus. You do not know these people nor cannot tell with any certainty if they're telling the truth at all because it cannot be checked. And how about God?

I'm not an atheist, but I do find the YEC position to be so nonsensical because it has to maintain its position by turning a blind eye to both science and common sense.

oh I believe evolution... yes that is not in dispute here, what is in dispute is it seems everytime someone talks about evolution the only thing that comes to mind (since it's about the extent of it taught in schools) is that we came from apes.

I am not a young earth creationist either... but I love physics and astronomy more than evolutionary biology mainly because most people (including uneducated teachers teaching our children) got it all wrong...
 
"most" view evolution, or more specifically "human evolution" as transmutation...

there's a big problem in our public school system, mainly the teachers do not understand it fully themselves.

that goes for our little representations we all have in our public museums too... it is misleading and represented visually (which has impact)
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
actually all we do know is that Homo Sapiens evolved as our own species independently.

biology can not prove transmutation in our line... from one species to homo sapiens.
I just did. The ERV evidence spells out pretty plainly that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
if transmutation was fact... it would be before our eyes and crocodiles would be developing wings turning into birds.
Straw-man.
yes the chimp may be a relative... but if we came from the chimp why can't they prove it?
Straw-man.
oh I believe evolution... yes that is not in dispute here
Whoa, wait a second. If you accept evolution then what's up with you saying that crocodiles should turn into birds and then act like evolution is false because they are not? Or are you using some kind of different definition of evolution?
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I've read into all of that and simply do not believe because I can not see it... I stand with the pre-2014 data and will not succumb to biologists who are more like fan fiction writers than scientist. It is the most rapidly changing field with delusions of grandeur unseen in real science such as physics.

it's likely you have more dolphin dna in you than you do neanderthal... they provide nothing for comparison.

Gap Between Neanderthals and Us Narrows, But Does Not Close

The case isn't closed... we didn't come from neanderthal, they are a sub-species. And take note of that when reading, terms like "our species" that doesn't mean "their species" (neanderthal)

As far as having more Dolphin DNA than Neanderthal DNA, "they" do provide plenty of comparisons, you just have to look at other studies... Just hop on google and look some stuff up. Gene studies? They're there. You've an 84% Gene similarity with dogs.
Want complete genome studies and comparisons? For the animals that have a complete genome sequence, those are available too. You're just not going to find a scientist who is doing a Neanderthal genomic survey who gives a **** about dolphins.

| The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

Bibliography of Page 6
This addresses your problem with "speculations" about Red Hair and other such issues. It's a quick and easy read.

https://www.promega.com/~/media/fil...edings/ishi 11/oral presentations/goodwin.pdf
 
Gene studies? They're there. You've an 84% Gene similarity with dogs.

hey thanks... thats weird 84% match for a dog and only 2% match for neanderthal (and everything about the world as we know it has changed) we need to rewrite history!

you can probably see my dilemma or situation... what I know of evolution came from the public school system lol.

e00b2e63c6694c032df9f8239fc6b5c236bd36bc17216f1260a27c1910b86921.jpg


you gotta love Mr Shark? afterall he is evidence that things sometimes just don't change... even in 450mya

Sharks Puncture the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium -- By: Ron Knisley | Galaxie Software

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
if transmutation was fact... it would be before our eyes and crocodiles would be developing wings turning into birds.

Evolution doesn't stop and pause therefore remaining invisible to us. If transmutation was fact it could be observed in nature.
Which is why it's not valid.

"Transmutation of species or Transformism are terms often used to describe 19th century evolutionary ideas for the altering of one species into another that preceded Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a theory on the transmutation of species in Philosophie Zoologique (1809). Lamarck did not believe that all living things shared a common ancestor. Rather he believed that simple forms of life were created continuously by spontaneous generation. He also believed that an innate life force, which he sometimes described as a nervous fluid, drove species to become more complex over time, advancing up a linear ladder of complexity that was related to the great chain of being. Lamarck also recognized that species were adapted to their environment."
source:Wikipedia​

That Robert Mackenzie Beverley chose to use the word "transmutation" is unfortunate because, as in this case, it can be confusing to those unfamiliar with evolution. Evolution does not involve the process of transmutation.

yes the chimp may be a relative... but if we came from the chimp why can't they prove it?
Because we didn't come from chimps. We came from a common ancestor. Here are two illustrations of our relationship to chimps. Homo is the human genus. Pan is the chimp genus.

400px-Homininae.svg.png


The common ancestor of both lies at the family rank of Hominini

Note how distantly related modern humans are to chimps, and the obvious fact that they played absolutely no part in our evolution. Both broke away from each other at the family level.

hominid_evo.jpg
 

McBell

Unbound
hey thanks... thats weird 84% match for a dog and only 2% match for neanderthal (and everything about the world as we know it has changed) we need to rewrite history!

you can probably see my dilemma or situation... what I know of evolution came from the public school system lol.


you gotta love Mr Shark? afterall he is evidence that things sometimes just don't change... even in 450mya

Sharks Puncture the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium -- By: Ron Knisley | Galaxie Software

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong
You do realize that the "drown them in bull ****" debate tactic does not work on a forum, right?
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
if transmutation was fact... it would be before our eyes and crocodiles would be developing wings turning into birds.

Evolution doesn't stop and pause therefore remaining invisible to us. If transmutation was fact it could be observed in nature.

The Darwinian Theory of the Transmutation of Species : Robert Mackenzie Beverley : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive


No dinosaurs did that and they are working on back engineering chicken genes to create a type of dinosaur.


Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken |

 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
yes the chimp may be a relative... but if we came from the chimp why can't they prove it?

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Were related and they did.


Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome

The phases through which chromosomes replicate, divide, shuffle, and recombine are imperfect, as DNA is subject to random mutations. Mutations do not always produce harmful outcomes. In fact, many mutations are thought to be neutral, and some even give rise to beneficial traits. To corroborate Darwin's theory, scientists would need to find a valid explanation for why a chromosome pair is missing in humans that is present in apes.

 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
hey thanks... thats weird 84% match for a dog and only 2% match for neanderthal (and everything about the world as we know it has changed) we need to rewrite history!

you can probably see my dilemma or situation... what I know of evolution came from the public school system lol.

e00b2e63c6694c032df9f8239fc6b5c236bd36bc17216f1260a27c1910b86921.jpg


you gotta love Mr Shark? afterall he is evidence that things sometimes just don't change... even in 450mya

Sharks Puncture the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium -- By: Ron Knisley | Galaxie Software

Ten Reasons Evolution is Wrong


Why are you posting you believe in evolutuion and then a article ten reasons why evolution is wrong?

By the way I think you mmissed the day on Shark evolution.


Evolution of a Super Predator
Sharks are one of evolution's most enduring success stories. Although they have few hard parts that can survive the insults of geologic time, sharks have left a long and rich fossil record. Some 2,000 to 3,000 species of fossil shark have been described. In contrast, the total cast of the dinosaur dynasty comprises only about 650 to 800 species. The ancestry of sharks dates back more than 200 million years before the earliest known dinosaur. The dinosaurs are long gone now, canceled despite enthusiastic ratings (especially among the 8-year-old demographic). But we still have sharks - about 1,100 species of them. To understand the sharks as they are today, it is helpful to understand how their ancestors were in the distant past - where they came from, so to speak. The ancestry of modern sharks is an epic tale, as full of mystery and intrigue as any first date.

Introduction to Shark Evolution, Geologic Time and Age Determination
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
oh I believe evolution... yes that is not in dispute here, what is in dispute is it seems everytime someone talks about evolution the only thing that comes to mind (since it's about the extent of it taught in schools) is that we came from apes.

I am not a young earth creationist either... but I love physics and astronomy more than evolutionary biology mainly because most people (including uneducated teachers teaching our children) got it all wrong...

If you love physics and astronomy and cosmology, and have studied it, then you know the whole universe has evolved to what it is today.
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
no intermarriage... that's reading quite ahead. They suspect there may have been one interbreeding but they can't be sure. Other scientists (who make tons of cash money via the taxpayer) estimate there could have been up to 3 instances of interbreeding as CM was early on out of Africa (in the middle east)

Honestly reading thru all the Neanderthal debate on various sites, 99.7% of all hypothesis comes from "speculation" which isn't really science... speculation is sitting around dreaming stuff up and giving neanderthal blue eyes and red or blonde hair.

[While modern humans share some nuclear DNA with the extinct Neanderthals, the two species do not share anymitochondrial DNA,[132] which in primates is always maternally transmitted.]

[This would suggest that modern humans came in and replaced Neanderthals, rather than a slow shift or integration occurring in this region.]

[Other studies carried out since the sequencing of the Neanderthal genome have cast doubt on the level of admixture between Neanderthals and modern humans, or even as to whether the species interbred at all.]

and yes... after reading thru all that and successfully appearing to get the readers to believe it, we come to my favorite part.

[it was disclosed by Svante Pääbo that in the previous work at the Max Planck Institute that "Contamination was indeed an issue," and they eventually realized that 11% of their sample was modern human DNA.]

favorite part yes because this is what scientists (specially biologists) do... they are more likely than any other to fabricate evidence which supports their speculation/theory (a pattern which can be observed in historic record)

in fact reading that whole article they give you multiple paragraphs of speculation... then maybe at the end of each paragraph a quick short sentence of why it is contested or couldn't be the case.

gotta love wiki...

Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

another example of how researchers would get one to believe their speculation is the part about the eye sockets and all that jazz about how neanderthal brains developed much larger portions in the areas of the brain that deal with vision.

I never knew we had a neanderthal brain to examine...?

Neanderthal's were NOT dumb.

"Neanderthal, was not a modern human and used tools, created art and buried their dead."

But it seems modern humans had sex with them.



The new human evolution website from the new 20+ million dollar museam hall at the smithsonian.

Evidence of Evolution
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, Homo sapiens, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.




Exciting scientific discoveries continually add to the broader and deeper public knowledge of human evolution. Find out about the latest evidence in our What’s Hot in Human Origins section.

Behavior
Explore the evidence of early human behavior—from ancient footprints to stone tools and the earliest symbols and art – along with similarities and differences in the behavior of other primate species.

3D Collection
Explore our 3D collection of fossils and artifacts.

Human Fossils
From skeletons to teeth, early human fossils have been found of more than 6,000 individuals. Look into our digital 3-D collection and learn about fossil human species.

Genetics
Our genes offer evidence of how closely we are related to one another – and of our species’ connection with all other organisms.

Dating
The layers that contain fossils and archeological clues can be dated by more than a dozen techniques that use the basic principles of physics, chemistry, and Earth sciences. Some techniques can even estimate the age of the ancient teeth and bones directly. Advances in dating have made human evolution very exciting!


Human Evolution by The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

One Species, Living Worldwide
The billions of human beings living today all belong to one species: Homo sapiens.

As in all species, there is variation among individual human beings, from size and shape to skin tone and eye color. But we are much more alike than we are different. We are, in fact, remarkably similar. The DNA of all human beings living today is 99.9% alike.

We all have roots extending back 200,000 years to the emergence of the first modern humans in Africa, and back more than 6 million years to the evolution of the earliest human species in Africa. This amazing story of adaptation and survival is written in the language of our genes, in every cell of our bodies—as well as in the fossil and behavioral evidence.

This ancient heritage is yours.

Explore the origins of modern humans in Africa about 200,000 years ago and celebrate our species’ epic journey around the world in this video: "One Species, Living Worldwide."

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/one-species-living- worldwide


a joint statement of IAP by 68 national and international science academies lists as established scientific fact that Earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old and has undergone continual change; that life, according to the evidence of earliest fossils, appeared on Earth at least 3.8 billion years ago and has subsequently taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve; and that the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicates their common primordial origin



New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution

Homo sapiens originated in Africa 150,000 years ago and began to migrate 55,000 to 60,000 years ago. It is thought he arrived in Australia around 45,000 years before present (BP). Australia was, at the time, already colonised by homo erectus. This dispersal, from Africa to Australia through Arabia, Asia and the Malay peninsula, could have occurred at a rate of 1km per year. (Credit: Image courtesy of University Of Cambridge)

New Research Confirms 'Out Of Africa' Theory Of Human Evolution -- ScienceDaily



DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right

Molecular biologist Sean Carroll shows how evolution happens, one snippet of DNA at a time

One of the great triumphs of modern evolutionary science, evo devo addresses many of the key questions that were unanswerable when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, and Carroll has become a leader in this nascent field. Now a professor of molecular biology and genetics at the University of Wisconsin, he continues to decode the genes that control life’s physical forms and to explore how mutations in those genes drive evolutionary change. These days, Carroll also devotes increasing energy to telling the public about his field’s remarkable discoveries through a series of books—Endless Forms Most Beautiful, The Making of the Fittest, and the brand-new Remarkable Creatures. He spoke with DISCOVER senior editor Pamela Weintraub about what his work has taught him about Darwin, the nature of evolution, and how life really works.

It has been 150 years since Charles Darwin proposed his theory of evolution in On the Origin of Species, yet in some ways the concept of evolution seems more controversial than ever today. Why do you think that is?
It is a cultural issue, not a scientific one. On the science side our confidence grows yearly because we see independent lines of evidence converge. What we’ve learned from the fossil record is confirmed by the DNA record and confirmed again by embryology. But people have been raised to disbelieve evolution and to hold other ideas more precious than this knowledge.
At the same time, we routinely rely on DNA to convict and exonerate criminals. We rely on DNA science for things like paternity. We rely on DNA science in the clinic to weigh our disease risks or maybe even to look at prognoses for things like cancer. DNA science surrounds us, but in this one realm we seem unwilling to accept its facts. Juries are willing to put people to death based upon the variations in DNA, but they’re not willing to understand the mechanism that creates that variation and shapes what makes humans different from other things. It’s a blindness. I think this is a phase that we’ll eventually get through. Other countries have come to peace with DNA. I don’t know how many decades or centuries it’s going to take us.

DNA Agrees With All the Other Science: Darwin Was Right | DiscoverMagazine.com





They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To
Our species—and individual races—have recently made big evolutionary changes to adjust to new pressures.



They Don't Make Homo Sapiens Like They Used To | DiscoverMagazine.com


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving

A comprehensive scan of the human genome finds that hundreds of our genes have undergone positive natural selection during the past 10,000 years of human evolution.


Hundreds of Human Genes Still Evolving
 
Top