• 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?

jonathan180iq

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

avatar10984_1.gif


....That's not how it works...

When you read something stating that you are 1-3% Neanderthal, what that means is that there is that much genetic information that likely came solely from Neanderthal sources. It does not mean that you only share, for example, 2% of your DNA with Neanderthals. We share a common ancestor with them - so, as with the study of Chimpanzee DNA, you have a great many number of genes that are essentially identical to Neanderthal. They just don't bring that up as often as the 1-3% numbers because it's kind of a given. If you think that you only share 2% of your DNA with them, which would be far less than you share with every other mammal on the planet...well then I can see your confusion.

Often times, the percentage is so low that it doesn't exceed the variance threshold of it simply being an
anomaly or a mutation and for that reason it's not solely attributed to coming from Neanderthal sources.

I mean, good lord, you're something like 23% round worm... Of course you're more than 2% Neanderthal.

Ya know something, at the personal level, if someone wants to maintain faith in God or whatever then so be it. Good for them. Good for you. Understanding evolutionary science doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you believe in God. The only time that would get in the way is when someone wants to deny actual knowledge for pseudo-science or make believe and then try and convince other people that their make believe hokum is better than a real study.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Neanderthal's were NOT dumb.

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

Just to support this post, there is also evidence that they created musical instruments out of small - hollowed out bone.
Anything that can create music is extremely developed intellectually.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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...
Thanks for the clarification.

The evidence is that we have a common ancestry with the chimp line that seems to have split with us somewhere around 6-7 million years ago, based on both the fossil evidence (especially the Chad find) and the genome testing. Even though the evidence is not overwhelming, this is the general picture we're seeing, and there's no reason to dismiss it even though the "final answer" certainly is not in.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
"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)
Nobody understands anything "fully", but biology teachers in general almost undoubtedly have enough information to teach the generalities of evolution. No one understands God "fully" and yet that certainly hasn't stopped ministers from talking.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
Nobody understands anything "fully", but biology teachers in general almost undoubtedly have enough information to teach the generalities of evolution. No one understands God "fully" and yet that certainly hasn't stopped ministers from talking.
talking ... without any evidence what-so-ever!
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
avatar10984_1.gif


....That's not how it works...

When you read something stating that you are 1-3% Neanderthal, what that means is that there is that much genetic information that likely came solely from Neanderthal sources. It does not mean that you only share, for example, 2% of your DNA with Neanderthals. We share a common ancestor with them - so, as with the study of Chimpanzee DNA, you have a great many number of genes that are essentially identical to Neanderthal. They just don't bring that up as often as the 1-3% numbers because it's kind of a given. If you think that you only share 2% of your DNA with them, which would be far less than you share with every other mammal on the planet...well then I can see your confusion.

Often times, the percentage is so low that it doesn't exceed the variance threshold of it simply being an
anomaly or a mutation and for that reason it's not solely attributed to coming from Neanderthal sources.

I mean, good lord, you're something like 23% round worm... Of course you're more than 2% Neanderthal.

Ya know something, at the personal level, if someone wants to maintain faith in God or whatever then so be it. Good for them. Good for you. Understanding evolutionary science doesn't have anything to do with whether or not you believe in God. The only time that would get in the way is when someone wants to deny actual knowledge for pseudo-science or make believe and then try and convince other people that their make believe hokum is better than a real study.

I believe Carbon Dioxide shares the oxygen elemetn with Sodium Nitrate but that doesn't mean that one evolved from the other. I believe genes are building blocks just as elements are i chemistry and God can choose to use them in more than one species if he wishes without evolution having to be involved.

BTW I believe my ancestry does not go that far back without lapsing into mythology and basicly that is what evolution amounts to.
 

averageJOE

zombie
I believe Carbon Dioxide shares the oxygen elemetn with Sodium Nitrate but that doesn't mean that one evolved from the other. I believe genes are building blocks just as elements are i chemistry and God can choose to use them in more than one species if he wishes without evolution having to be involved.

BTW I believe my ancestry does not go that far back without lapsing into mythology and basicly that is what evolution amounts to.
Because believing the very first human was created out of dirt makes so much more sense.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I believe Carbon Dioxide shares the oxygen elemetn with Sodium Nitrate but that doesn't mean that one evolved from the other. I believe genes are building blocks just as elements are i chemistry and God can choose to use them in more than one species if he wishes without evolution having to be involved.

BTW I believe my ancestry does not go that far back without lapsing into mythology and basicly that is what evolution amounts to.

I'm so glad you brought up the periodic table of elements.

You believe that genes are building blocks just like the table of elements - So have you ever wondered where those elements come from? Are they just these magical little squares on a table or do they also have an origin and a common ancestor?

Oregano is an ingredient for making delicious food, but to assume that oregano is just a preexisting "element" used to create meals would be foolish, wouldn't it?

Take a look at my avatar. That's a hydrogen atom. Without Hydrogen, how doe the other elements come to be?

Hydrogen, the most abundant resource in the Universe, is the basis of all existence.

Do you know what happens when you super heat hydrogen atoms? Some of those negative electrons detach from their proton and you get these zippy little ions. If you bind an unimaginable number of hydrogen atoms in a Universe-sized furnace (a star) something magical happens... Helium is created. Two of these individual Hydrogen derived ions slam into each other and you get a two-proton element...Know what has two protons? Helium. When you add that Helium into the same furnace with the Hydrogen, you get everything else on the table - Oxygen, Silicon, Carbon, Iron....you get the point. When those Universal furnaces implode, collapse, explode, or anything else, all of the other heavy elements are created.... This is isn't magic and it isn't a deity that does this. It's just good old fashioned science and Chemistry 101.

So you can go on believing that CO2 and NaNO3 aren't evolved from the same thing, but you'll be quite mistaken.
 
Last edited:

shawn001

Well-Known Member
I believe Carbon Dioxide shares the oxygen elemetn with Sodium Nitrate but that doesn't mean that one evolved from the other. I believe genes are building blocks just as elements are i chemistry and God can choose to use them in more than one species if he wishes without evolution having to be involved.

BTW I believe my ancestry does not go that far back without lapsing into mythology and basicly that is what evolution amounts to.


As jonathan180iq, mentions, NUCLEOSNYTHESIS! Look it up and learn.

"BTW I believe my ancestry does not go that far back without lapsing into mythology and basicly that is what evolution amounts to"

Were glad you believe your ancestry does not go that far back. Unfortunate though for you not to know more about the subject or subjects.

But life on Earth that we know of now goes back to around 3.8 billion years, it evolved photosynthesis and why you and your ancestors breath Oxygen at all and not natural gas when the solar system formed and the Earth initial atmosphere.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Because believing the very first human was created out of dirt makes so much more sense.
The very first human wasn't made out of dirt. The Adamic race is only 7,000 years old and definitely not as old as other races except that it may have pre-existed before going the way of the Neanderthal in extinction. The gods revived this race most likely by cloning from a blood clot in old bones found in the dirt.
 
Last edited:

Muffled

Jesus in me
I'm so glad you brought up the periodic table of elements.

You believe that genes are building blocks just like the table of elements - So have you ever wondered where those elements come from? Are they just these magical little squares on a table or do they also have an origin and a common ancestor?

Oregano is an ingredient for making delicious food, but to assume that oregano is just a preexisting "element" used to create meals would be foolish, wouldn't it?

Take a look at my avatar. That's a hydrogen atom. Without Hydrogen, how doe the other elements come to be?

Hydrogen, the most abundant resource in the Universe, is the basis of all existence.

Do you know what happens when you super heat hydrogen atoms? Some of those negative electrons detach from their proton and you get these zippy little ions. If you bind an unimaginable number of hydrogen atoms in a Universe-sized furnace (a star) something magical happens... Helium is created. Two of these individual Hydrogen derived ions slam into each other and you get a two-proton element...Know what has two protons? Helium. When you add that Helium into the same furnace with the Hydrogen, you get everything else on the table - Oxygen, Silicon, Carbon, Iron....you get the point. When those Universal furnaces implode, collapse, explode, or anything else, all of the other heavy elements are created.... This is isn't magic and it isn't a deity that does this. It's just good old fashioned science and Chemistry 101.

So you can go on believing that CO2 and NaNO3 aren't evolved from the same thing, but you'll be quite mistaken.

Exactly. I believe the elements did not evolve from each other, they were created by a force. I am still a bit fuzzy about how one gets stars out of the Big Bang. What is the speculation on that?
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
Exactly. I believe the elements did not evolve from each other, they were created by a force. I am still a bit fuzzy about how one gets stars out of the Big Bang. What is the speculation on that?

But they did evolve from each other (Not in the adaptation based on natural selection sense - but they all share a common ancestor in Hydrogen. They changed themselves from having the simplest characteristics into all of the complexity that you see. One thing, that consists of only 1 proton and 1 electron, has the observable ability to transform into something utterly and completely different. That alone is just one piece of evidence to support the idea that anything can change from one form into another.

Have you ever lit a firecracker and watched it blow up? The shrapnel spreads in fairly uniform shape but not in concentration. Some areas in the blow-out zone have higher concentrations of firecracker stuff that others, right?

firecracker-detonated-in-slow-motion.gif


The early Universe was the same way. Some areas had denser concentrations of Hydrogen than others. "Small" clumps of hydrogen, held together by gravity and another force that I don't recall the name of at the moment, find other clumps and pockets of Hydrogen, developing into gas giants. Given enough mass, (which there is a number for but I can't dig that out of my brain at the moment) the weight of all that crap floating around together becomes so great that a spark flicks on and a star is formed. - If you would like observable evidence of how this works as well, there are literally hundreds of photographs of developing stars in space going through all of the various stages of this process. We can also recreate any number of these assertions using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

The Universe is still filled with something like 75% Hydrogen unless I'm terribly mistaken. Using a common question out of the creationists play-book - How can there still be Hydrogen when we have Sodium Nitrate? They are two distinct elements, yet they originate from the same thing.
 
Last edited:

shawn001

Well-Known Member
Exactly. I believe the elements did not evolve from each other, they were created by a force. I am still a bit fuzzy about how one gets stars out of the Big Bang. What is the speculation on that?


"Exactly. I believe the elements did not evolve from each other, they were created by a force."

Yes and we know quite well how that happens. Its called Nucleosynthesis. A supernova explodes.

"
A star's energy comes from the combining of light elements into heavier elements in a process known as fusion, or "nuclear burning". It is generally believed that most of the elements in the universe heavier than helium are created, or synthesized, in stars when lighternuclei fuse to make heavier nuclei. The process is called nucleosynthesis.

Nucleosynthesis requires a high-speed collision, which can only be achieved with very high temperature. The minimum temperature required for the fusion of hydrogen is 5 million degrees. Elements with more protons in their nuclei require still higher temperatures. For instance, fusing carbon requires a temperature of about one billion degrees! Most of the heavy elements, from oxygen up through iron, are thought to be produced in stars that contain at least ten times as much matter as our Sun.

Our Sun is currently burning, or fusing, hydrogen to helium. This is the process that occurs during most of a star's lifetime. After the hydrogen in the star's core is exhausted, the star can burn helium to form progressively heavier elements, carbon and oxygen and so on, until iron and nickel are formed. Up to this point the process releases energy. The formation of elements heavier than iron and nickel requires the input of energy. Supernova explosions result when the cores of massive stars have exhausted their fuel supplies and burned everything into iron and nickel. The nuclei with mass heavier than nickel are thought to be formed during these explosions."

NASA's Cosmicopia - Basics - Composition - Nucleosynthesis

Every atom in your body was made from star dust. All the iron in your body for example was made in Big stars exploding, billions of years ago. In fact the solar system itself is recycled material.


"I am still a bit fuzzy about how one gets stars out of the Big Bang. What is the speculation on that?"

It isn't speculation, right after the bang there was only protons and neutrons.



"It was so hot, that all the matter would have been in the form of particles, called protons and neutrons. There would initially have been equal numbers of protons and neutrons. However, as the universe expanded, it would have cooled. About a minute after the Big Bang, the temperature would have fallen to about a billion degrees, about a hundred times the temperature in the Sun. At this temperature, the neutrons will start to decay into more protons. If this had been all that happened, all the matter in the universe would have ended up as the simplest element, hydrogen, whose nucleus consists of a single proton. However, some of the neutrons collided with protons, and stuck together to form the next simplest element, helium, whose nucleus consists of two protons and two neutrons. But no heavier elements, like carbon or oxygen, would have been formed in the early universe. It is difficult to imagine that one could build a living system, out of just hydrogen and helium, and anyway the early universe was still far too hot for atoms to combine into molecules.

The universe would have continued to expand, and cool. But some regions would have had slightly higher densities than others. The gravitational attraction of the extra matter in those regions, would slow down their expansion, and eventually stop it. Instead, they would collapse to form galaxies and stars, starting from about two billion years after the Big Bang. Some of the early stars would have been more massive than our Sun. They would have been hotter than the Sun, and would have burnt the original hydrogen and helium, into heavier elements, such as carbon, oxygen, and iron. This could have taken only a few hundred million years. After that, some of the stars would have exploded as supernovas, and scattered the heavy elements back into space, to form the raw material for later generations of stars."

Life in the Universe - Stephen Hawking


This is a stellar nursery.

Pillars_of_Creation.jpg



The gas clouds which are extremely big and gravity form stars. A supernova went off behind this gas cloud and that will wipe out this cloud someday.
 

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
To expand on Shawn's post:

Given that we've explained the process of one star forming, try extrapolating that process over billions of years and across the vastness of space. It should be easy to see how...let's be very conservative and say 200 Trillion....It should be easy to see how repeating this star cycle 200 trillion times over just a few billions years would create more matter and complexity than you can even wrap your head around.

This process isn't wishful thinking or hocus pocus, and it doesn't require any type of deitic involvement in order to produce living things. It doesn't push one species to the pinnacle of existence and claim that it has dominion over everything else... It's simply the natural order or Universal creativity.

There is substantial evidence that life existed on Mars. It's extinction happened eons before even the dinosaurs took their first breath. If live can originate elsewhere in our solar system, then it's no stretch to assume that life can originate anywhere in the Universe. And if that's true, then life isn't even rare, not to mention nor can we be the rulers of this physical plane...

You can grab a $50 telescope right now from Wal-Mart and see a lot of these things happening right before your very eyes.

Long before humans were an amoeba in the ocean of space, asteroids were pummeling the moon - lava flows were filling those craters, and new impact sites were forming. A proto-planet was being ripped apart by Jupiter's gravity somewhere past Mars. There were tidal pools and blue skies over the Martian horizon, The Sahara desert was an incredibly vast oasis of lush growth, You could see North America from Western Europe, hundreds of thousands of animal species were born, lived, and died, leaving only bones in the dirt.... All of these things happened, and are happening independently of whether or not you take a breath tomorrow. You existence and my existence are absolutely immaterial to the continued progress of existence - except that we are a part of it.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that magic men floating above the Earth cloned the DNA of modern humans to give them dominion over this one of trillions of planets. There are vast mountains of evidence to support the idea that man shares common ancestry and lineage with every other living thing in the Universe. Trying to pass off good science because it's not observable within the window of an 80 year life span is foolish.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I believe Carbon Dioxide shares the oxygen elemetn with Sodium Nitrate but that doesn't mean that one evolved from the other.
.

It is utterly embarrassing to read creationist - speaking science. Did you flunk chemistry and biology?

What does carbon dioxide and sodium nitrate have to do with evolution?

No one here has suggest converting carbon dioxide to sodium nitrate, or vice versa, only you just did. You are attacking strawman with your ignorance.

There is no way any chemical reaction to transform one chemical compound to another. It is impossible because they (compounds) are unrelated.

Beside that, it is not "EVOLUTION" what you are claiming. What you are claiming, is impossible, illogical and only show you have no understanding of chemistry, let alone biochemistry.

If you don't understand chemistry, then ask help, seek reliable sources (read, learn and understand), and whatever you do, never make up unsupported and unsupportable claims, because it will only make you look ignorant and a liar.

I believe genes are building blocks just as elements are i chemistry and God can choose to use them in more than one species if he wishes without evolution having to be involved.

BTW I believe my ancestry does not go that far back without lapsing into mythology and basicly that is what evolution amounts to.

Do you really go in that direction?

Myth often involve story of god(s), magic and the supernatural.

First: Evolution is simply BIOLOGY that explained changes through inheritance of genes (hence genetics) over not just a couple of generations of a single family, but a number of generations, over population of organisms. Evolution is supported by observable evidences.

Second: Evolution is not about the origin of first life. If you are looking for when life first began, then you you should looking at abiogenesis, not evolution.

Do you really want to know is "myth" in creationism?
  1. Myth is believing that God somehow made an adult human out of dust from the ground (Genesis 2:7). That's a myth.
  2. Myth is believing in God making adult woman from man's rib (Genesis 2:21-22).
  3. Myth is believing that a serpent can talk in human voice (Genesis 3). That's fable.

It magic or supernatural.

You said it yourself. Genes are building blocks for life. If that's the case, then I will ask you a simple question, since you think you know everything.

If God made man out of dust, then does this "dust" contain genes or DNA?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
I don't believe there is any evidence to support that theory.
The evidence is massive to the point whereas I abandoned the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in and attended when I was in my mid 20's when I really studied what that evidence was and is.
 
Top