Darwin's Illusion

[Valjean]

Either animal and vegetable life emerged from a few cells, wherever they came from, by "natural selection" or they did not. I know that there are chemical reactions that happen naturally. But to then say that's how life began and became vegetation and animals is sheer speculation. Imagination.

Before you blithely declare it pure speculation, I think you should consider why it's believed by those most familiar with the subject. You have some very strong opinions about a subject you've chosen to remain ignorant of. You make baseless assertions.

You're also confusing abiogenesis and evolution. "How life began" and "how it became vegetation and animals" are completely different processes, covered by completely different disciplines.

And I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation. If you have no alternative explanation, whence the objection to the scientifically evidenced one?

 

[Subduction Zone]

From what I understand you to be saying, there are said to be different branches perhaps stemming from one or more cellular ancestors?

Take DNA for example. The DNA evidence forms what is called phylogenetic tree. It shows how different species are related to each other. So to different kinds of apples, like Granny Smith and Delicious, will show that they are almost identical by their DNA. We can take a broader view and see that those apples are related to pears. If one takes and even large look one can see that they are related to roses, cherries and other fruits:

This can be done with all life. And it all works backwards to one common ancestor.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, you may consider me blind and deaf. I'll wait. The world speaks for itself.

In this matter the world already has. No one can force you to see.

 

[YoursTrue]

DNA is the evidence. The naturally forming nested hierarchies from various independent sources is evidence for it. You just demonstrated that your claim was as justified as someone calling you a child abuser. You had no evidence for your claim, instead you demanded evidence from others. That is wrong. That would be like your accuser demanding evidence that you were not a child abuser. And no, it is a fair comparison. If what you claimed was an accurate accusation against a scientist it could ruin his career. In other words I used a fake serious accusation against you just as you made a fake accusation against scientists. I have integrity and would never seriously make such a charge. Why do you keep making such charges?

The person that makes the claim needs evidence for their claim. You had none.

Before you blithely declare it pure speculation, I think you should consider why it's believed by those most familiar with the subject. You have some very strong opinions about a subject you've chosen to remain ignorant of. You make baseless assertions.

And I'm still waiting for your alternative explanation. If you have no alternative explanation, whence the objection to the scientifically evidenced one?

Evidenced? From a few cells perhaps to the so-called branches stemming from the same or maybe not the same initial cell(s)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evidenced? From a few cells perhaps to the so-called branches stemming from the same or maybe not the same initial cell(s)?

Whose fault is it if you refuse to see the evidence? There are rules for evidence. That is why I have tried to teach those to you. If you refuse to learn the rules for evidence one can pretend that it does not exist. Scientists do not have that luxury. That is why such an amazingly high percentage of them accept evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Take DNA for example. The DNA evidence forms what is called phylogenetic tree. It shows how different species are related to each other. So to different kinds of apples, like Granny Smith and Delicious, will show that they are almost identical by their DNA. We can take a broader view and see that those apples are related to pears. If one takes and even large look one can see that they are related to roses, cherries and other fruits:

This can be done with all life. And it all works backwards to one common ancestor.

Really? I mean as in facts and proof?
OK, human scientific (?) logic tells some that there are fruit branches, I suppose, and fish branches. Maybe stemming from separate roots? Right? Even though I may not be using scientific terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? I mean as in facts and proof?
OK, human scientific (?) logic tells some that there are fruit branches, I suppose, and fish branches. Maybe stemming from separate roots? Right? Even though I may not be using scientific terms.

Those are facts. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. But since you want to use it, is gravity proven?

 

[YoursTrue]

Whose fault is it if you refuse to see the evidence? There are rules for evidence. That is why I have tried to teach those to you. If you refuse to learn the rules for evidence one can pretend that it does not exist. Scientists do not have that luxury. That is why such an amazingly high percentage of them accept evolution.

I can understand that many believe in the theory of evolution. I can even understand why, although I do not agree with the basic tenets of it, i.e., that lifeforms evolved by the process of natural selection. I see that gorillas remain gorillas, bees remain bees, and so forth. If there are variations that develop among them, and these came about naturally by mutation or genetic change, this does not prove the theory of evolution. It shows that lions are lions and rhinos are rhinos. And bees and bees. it's possible that among the various sections such as elephants and lions, and bees, there may be variants that came about. That is not evolution from one or maybe more cells moving to a big branch or branches.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are facts. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. But since you want to use it, is gravity proven?

Is it? I was just looking at the scientific view of gravity. I find it interesting and fascinating to an extent. Thinking of men floating in space and the earth's core holding us down if I understand that correctly. I still prefer thinking about, figuring, and listening to music.

 

[gnostic]

First of all, can you please define what you mean by creationism?

Since you’re a Christian, then my focused are usually about Genesis Creation. Especially since I am very familiar with Genesis, as I used to believe in the Bible for nearly 20 years.

It doesn’t matter if it is the biblical creation or creation from other religions, none of them are “science”, nor are they “historical”.

But it is funny, as I never heard of Creationism, until I joined my first Internet forum in 2003.

I believe there is evidence of God. That you don't see it or accept it does not mean there is no evidence. Evidence of God is life itself.

That just is

The operator word being that you “believe” there is “evidence” for God, but belief is not the same thing as having evidence to what you “believe” in.

Anyone can believe in what they want, but no would equate belief as evidence.

Can you or I observe God?

No, we can’t.

Can you or I “measure” God?

Or can you or I “test” God?

No, to both to these two.

Then, there are no evidence at all.

 

[YoursTrue]

Those are facts. The word "proof" is not used in the sciences. But since you want to use it, is gravity proven?

nceOr

Since you’re a Christian, then my focused are usually about Genesis Creation. Especially since I am very familiar with Genesis, as I used to believe in the Bible for nearly 20 years.

It doesn’t matter if it is the biblical creation or creation from other religions, none of them are “science”, nor are they “historical”.

But it is funny, as I never heard of Creationism, until I joined my first Internet forum in 2003.


That just is

The operator word being that you “believe” there is “evidence” for God, but belief is not the same thing as having evidence to what you “believe” in.

Anyone can believe in what they want, but no would equate belief as evidence.

Can you or I observe God?

No, we can’t.

Can you or I “measure” God?

Or can you or I “test” God?

No, to both to these two.

Then, there are no evidence at all.

I realize you do not believe the Bible is God's message to mankind to an extent. When I was younger I did not understand things about God or religion, having been raised in my family's religion and thinking ok, I guess this is ok. When I left home I was free to examine other ways of thinking. I found virtually nothing that made any sense whatsoever to me. I read books about anthropology and psychology, including Freud and others trying to find what life was all about. I believed in evolution because I had no alternative that satisfied me. I didn't think about it a lot, though.I just accepted it. Everyone's journey is different so I won't go into too many specifics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can understand that many believe in the theory of evolution. I can even understand why, although I do not agree with the basic tenets of it, i.e., that lifeforms evolved by the process of natural selection. I see that gorillas remain gorillas, bees remain bees, and so forth. If there are variations that develop among them, and these came about naturally by mutation or genetic change, this does not prove the theory of evolution. It shows that lions are lions and rhinos are rhinos. And bees and bees. it's possible that among the various sections such as elephants and lions, and bees, there may be variants that came about. That is not evolution from one or maybe more cells moving to a big branch or branches.

You keep forgetting. You are still an ape. You are still a monkey. Or are you trying to claim that you are not human? That bees remain bees does not help you since the theory of evolution predicts that.

And why the false accusations? Since when was that allowed in Christanity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

nceOr

I realize you do not believe the Bible is God's message to mankind to an extent. When I was younger I did not understand things about God or religion, having been raised in my family's religion and thinking ok, I guess this is ok. When I left home I was free to examine other ways of thinking. I found virtually nothing that made any sense whatsoever to me. I read books about anthropology and psychology, including Freud and others trying to find what life was all about. I believed in evolution because I had no alternative that satisfied me. I didn't think about it a lot, though.I just accepted it. Everyone's journey is different so I won't go into too many specifics.

You have to believe because you do not understand even the basics of science and you refuse to learn them.

You should not assume that because it would be a belief for you that it is a belief for others. Knowledge trumps mere belief. You should try to acquire knowledge, not beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is it? I was just looking at the scientific view of gravity. I find it interesting and fascinating to an extent. Thinking of men floating in space and the earth's core holding us down if I understand that correctly. I still prefer thinking about, figuring, and listening to music.

Wow! Okay. I do not know where to go from here.

You may have learned formulas in science schools but sadly you never learned science. In the sciences one can build upon what one has already learned, but you are not even at the starting line. And no "belief" is required. People have been trying to help you to understand so that you could know. But it appears that you are not open to learning.

 

[Audie]

What amazes me is YoursTrue's conflation of magic with mechanism, and how she finds magic more credible than known, observable mechanisms like chemistry and physics.
She continually asserts personal incredulity as evidence, and is apparently ignorant of the proposed mechanisms and supporting evidence underlying the ToE and creation of the world.

No "breath of life" or hand of God" has ever been observed, nor do they explain anything. They're magic, not mechanisms.

Repeating the nonsense about proof and. "A
couple of cells" over and over is remarkable too.

 

[gnostic]

I realize you do not believe the Bible is God's message to mankind to an extent. When I was younger I did not understand things about God or religion, having been raised in my family's religion and thinking ok, I guess this is ok. When I left home I was free to examine other ways of thinking. I found virtually nothing that made any sense whatsoever to me. I read books about anthropology and psychology, including Freud and others trying to find what life was all about. I believed in evolution because I had no alternative that satisfied me. I didn't think about it a lot, though.I just accepted it. Everyone's journey is different so I won't go into too many specifics.

It still don't make what you believe your "belief" to be "evidence" for God.

You still don't understand that you can only have evidence if you can test and observe the evidence. So if you test and observe God, then God isn't evidence.

And you still don't understand belief in God, your belief in the Bible, belief in your religion, they are not objective.

Evidence are require because they should be independent of what ever one's belief, and that include any scientist's personal religious belief.

There have been number of great Christian scientists, Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell, Lemaitre.

Even Darwin was a Christian for most of his life before he became more agnostic.

They were believers, but they didn’t let their personal religious beliefs interfere what they do with works in science.

Michael Behe failed to do this.

I mentioned Behe, and not Dembski, because Dembski was never a scientist; he isn’t qualified, and he is no expert in biology.

Behe failed to present a working falsifiable hypothesis.

As to Dembski, what he say, have no relevances in biology, so no one is taking him seriously in the biology community.

 

[Valjean]

You may believe your reasoning is logical and true. I no longer believe that evolution and "survival of the fittest" is why and how lifeforms came about. You may ask why. One reason is that DNA is very complex.

No. DNA is not very complex. It's just very l-o-o-o-n-n-n-g, like a chain.
This has been explained to you, but, apparently you've forgotten this salient fact.

Perhaps you know how DNA came about? hMaybe you do. Houses have builders. Some houses are built with bricks and have different layouts. Those are illustrations. Even the bricks had to be made by someone. Logic and observation of life is telling.

But some things make themselves -- without intention, design or purpose. Atoms and molecules just interact and assemble in accord with the laws of physics.

Fill a bathtub with ping-pong balls and they'll assemble themselves into a perfect crystal lattice, all by themselves, with no assistance by any supernatural personage.

But before I believed I was an atheist. Can I prove to you that God exists? As Paul declared before he was put to death, I paraphrase, if he could make someone a believer, he would. In other words, God has to show a person. No one else can.

But skeptics aren't asking for proof. We'd be interested in any objective evidence, ie: not based on familiarity, personal testimony, enculturation, incredulity, or popular opinion.

 

[Valjean]

Evidenced? From a few cells perhaps to the so-called branches stemming from the same or maybe not the same initial cell(s)?

Yes. There is overwhelming evidence that a few cells, reproducing with variation, in changing environments, over millions of generations, can produce many and varied forms. The handful of mechanisms by which this evolution proceeds are well known and easily observed.
Your skepticism is based on ignorance of the subject and personal incredulity.

 

[Audie]

Yes. There is overwhelming evidence that a few cells, reproducing with variation, in changing environments, over millions of generations, can produce many and varied forms. The handful of mechanisms by which this evolution proceeds are well known and easily observed.
Your skepticism is based on ignorance of the subject and personal incredulity.

In intro to biology courses they will show
how the change from single cell to multi cellular life progressed, just using living species.
Our friend may not have had such a course.

 

[Valjean]

I can understand that many believe in the theory of evolution. I can even understand why, although I do not agree with the basic tenets of it, i.e., that lifeforms evolved by the process of natural selection. I see that gorillas remain gorillas, bees remain bees, and so forth. If there are variations that develop among them, and these came about naturally by mutation or genetic change,

And the variations are the evolution; and the mutation and genetic change are mechanisms of evolution.

How closely have you observed the gorillas and bees, over how many generations, through how much environmental challenge?
I can put a little seed in the ground and come back in a week, and I'll see no fruit, nor will I see any the next year, or the year after. Most observable change takes more time than individual has.

You say you can observe variation, but not enough variation to produce a new species. How much variation would be needed for that?

If you acknowledge that small variations happen continually, how is it that these small changes avoid accumulating into big changes; species-level changes? Do the mutations &c. know to stop, at some point? How would that work, exactly???

Now I've posted examples of observed speciation several times, but, again, you've apparently ignored and learned nothing from them, since you continue to deny they exist.
Your belief appears unalterable by any evidence to the contrary. Doesn't that make your belief a delusion?

this does not prove the theory of evolution. It shows that lions are lions and rhinos are rhinos. And bees and bees. it's possible that among the various sections such as elephants and lions, and bees, there may be variants that came about. That is not evolution from one or maybe more cells moving to a big branch or branches.

Cells moving to a big branch or branches? What are you talking about? It's certainly not any mechanism of evolution I've ever heard about.
Is this another example of an opinion based on false information, or on ignorance of the actual mechanisms of evolution?