Darwin's Illusion

[Audie]

This is simply untrue. That does not summarise the evidence at all.

It's the creationist way.

Make things up, present them as real

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is simply untrue. That does not summarise the evidence at all.

Yes, they are only a small part of the evidence. They are not even the strongest evidence. They are arguably the most obvious evidence for amateurs. And even that small part of the evidence alone confirms the theory of evolution. People have to rigorously apply the Ostrich Defense to deny them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evolution is biology, not medicine.

They are different sciences, where one seek to treat human patients of their injuries, illnesses or diseases. These medications mainly focused on humans, and not every other living organisms.

No doctors or pathologists or pharmacologists or other specialists have claimed there are perfect medications for everyone. People differed in health, some more susceptible than others to illnesses or diseases than others, and some have better immunity systems than others, even among people of the same family. There are just too many variables.

You are deluded if you think there are such things as perfect medicine...they don’t exist.

I have a cousin who died from cancer. The treatments didn’t work for him. He has an older brother and two older sisters, and none of them have cancer.

Evolution, on the other hand, is more than just the biology of human evolution. There are other living and extinct non-human organisms, from microbes (unicellular organisms, such as bacteria, archaea and protists), to multicellular organisms, such as fungi, plants, and all other animals.

But when you are talking about Evolution, on species, genus or family scales, the focused are on population of numbers of generations, not on single individuals within one to two generations.

The principles of the bottomless pit of what is deemed as evidence -proof of evolution (oh no, not proof but ...of course, certainty of the theory) demonstrate to me now that it holds no substance. I wasn't always this way but have come to believe there is (must be) a Creator, based on the evidenceof life. It (evolution) is a bag that doesn't hold the particles presumed by buyers to be in it. Sorry.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The principles of the bottomless pit of what is deemed as evidence -proof of evolution (oh no, not proof but ...of course, certainty of the theory) demonstrate to me now that it holds no substance. I wasn't always this way but have come to believe there is (must be) a Creator, based on the evidenceof life. It's a bag that doesn't hold the particles presumed by buyers to be in it. Sorry.

Perhaps English is a second language for you. You seem to be unable to understand some very basic concepts. For example you keep bringing up "proof". By any rationally consistent definition of " proof" that you have the theory of evolution has been proven. But it appears that due to your fears you cannot reason rationally.

Can you define "proof" in your own words?

 

[gnostic]

The principles of the bottomless pit of what is deemed as evidence -proof of evolution (oh no, not proof but ...of course, certainty of the theory) demonstrate to me now that it holds no substance. I wasn't always this way but have come to believe there is (must be) a Creator, based on the evidenceof life. It's a bag that doesn't hold the particles presumed by buyers to be in it. Sorry.

There are no evidence for the existence of this Creator, which is only belief accepted through faith.

Faith isn’t evidence. Faith-based beliefs are no better than personal opinions.

Only testable and observable evidence can resolve whether a scientific theory is factual, or not.

The theory of Evolution offered testable and tested explanations that explain a number of different mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Natural Selection, etc) of how populations of organisms can change over period of time, eg biodiversity and speciation.

Btw, Evolution isn’t Abiogenesis. Evolution isn’t about the origin of first cellular life.

Abiogenesis is a different concept, that not only investigate how life form, but also it attempt to explain the origins some of the fundamental molecules that exist in all cells, biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates & lipids. The Miller-Urey experiment (1952), had successfully cause chemical reaction of some inorganic chemical into 9 different types of amino acids. Amino acids are organic compounds, and from molecular biology, amino acids are building blocks of proteins.

Another scientist, Joan Oró (1961) used different chemical to produce adenine, one of 5 base molecules (hence, it’s called nucleobase) for DNA nucleotide and for RNA nucleotide.

There have been other experiments, being performed over the decades since Miller and Oró. They were using chemicals that might have exist in a prebiotic atmosphere of the Earth. Prebiotic means before there were free oxygen in the atmosphere, so carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, etc.

And as I have explained to you and other creationists, many times before, science relied on evidence to determine validity of theory, not “proof”.

Proofs are based on logical models logical statements, expressed in abstract forms of equations.

Equations are useful tools in sciences, but equations are not evidence.

Not only there are no evidence for any god, be they called “Creator” or “Designer”, but there are also no mathematical equations for this deity of yours too, hence no proofs of your god.

You cannot create equations for something that clearly doesn’t exist.

Clearly you don’t even know what “proof” is. Please define proof, and show some examples of what proofs are.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are no evidence for the existence of this Creator, which is only belief accepted through faith.

Faith isn’t evidence. Faith-based beliefs are no better than personal opinions.

Only testable and observable evidence can resolve whether a scientific theory is factual, or not.

The theory of Evolution offered testable and tested explanations that explain a number of different mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Natural Selection, etc) of how populations of organisms can change over period of time, eg biodiversity and speciation.

Btw, Evolution isn’t Abiogenesis. Evolution isn’t about the origin of first cellular life.

Abiogenesis is a different concept, that not only investigate how life form, but also it attempt to explain the origins some of the fundamental molecules that exist in all cells, biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates & lipids. The Miller-Urey experiment (1952), had successfully cause chemical reaction of some inorganic chemical into 9 different types of amino acids. Amino acids are organic compounds, and from molecular biology, amino acids are building blocks of proteins.

Another scientist, Joan Oró (1961) used different chemical to produce adenine, one of 5 base molecules (hence, it’s called nucleobase) for DNA nucleotide and for RNA nucleotide.

There have been other experiments, being performed over the decades since Miller and Oró. They were using chemicals that might have exist in a prebiotic atmosphere of the Earth. Prebiotic means before there were free oxygen in the atmosphere, so carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, etc.

And as I have explained to you and other creationists, many times before, science relied on evidence to determine validity of theory, not “proof”.

Proofs are based on logical models logical statements, expressed in abstract forms of equations.

Equations are useful tools in sciences, but equations are not evidence.

Not only there are no evidence for any god, be they called “Creator” or “Designer”, but there are also no mathematical equations for this deity of yours too, hence no proofs of your god.

You cannot create equations for something that clearly doesn’t exist.

Again, as I examined the teachings and precepts of the basic content of the theory of evolution, it no longer adds up to me. But if it makes sense to you despite the fact that it is basically conjecture (I figure you don't like that word...), we do have ability to choose for ourselves what we will accept as true.

 

[YoursTrue]

There are no evidence for the existence of this Creator, which is only belief accepted through faith.

Faith isn’t evidence. Faith-based beliefs are no better than personal opinions.

Only testable and observable evidence can resolve whether a scientific theory is factual, or not.

The theory of Evolution offered testable and tested explanations that explain a number of different mechanisms (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Natural Selection, etc) of how populations of organisms can change over period of time, eg biodiversity and speciation.

Btw, Evolution isn’t Abiogenesis. Evolution isn’t about the origin of first cellular life.

Abiogenesis is a different concept, that not only investigate how life form, but also it attempt to explain the origins some of the fundamental molecules that exist in all cells, biological macromolecules, such as proteins, nucleic acids, carbohydrates & lipids. The Miller-Urey experiment (1952), had successfully cause chemical reaction of some inorganic chemical into 9 different types of amino acids. Amino acids are organic compounds, and from molecular biology, amino acids are building blocks of proteins.

Another scientist, Joan Oró (1961) used different chemical to produce adenine, one of 5 base molecules (hence, it’s called nucleobase) for DNA nucleotide and for RNA nucleotide.

There have been other experiments, being performed over the decades since Miller and Oró. They were using chemicals that might have exist in a prebiotic atmosphere of the Earth. Prebiotic means before there were free oxygen in the atmosphere, so carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen, carbon monoxide, etc.

And as I have explained to you and other creationists, many times before, science relied on evidence to determine validity of theory, not “proof”.

Proofs are based on logical models logical statements, expressed in abstract forms of equations.

Equations are useful tools in sciences, but equations are not evidence.

Not only there are no evidence for any god, be they called “Creator” or “Designer”, but there are also no mathematical equations for this deity of yours too, hence no proofs of your god.

You cannot create equations for something that clearly doesn’t exist.

Clearly you don’t even know what “proof” is. Please define proof, and show some examples of what proofs are.

Life itself is the proof of God's existence. I recognize you do not believe that. That is obviously your right to decide.

 

[gnostic]

Again, as I examined the teachings and precepts of the basic content of the theory of evolution, it no longer adds up to me.

You don’t understand enough basic biology to make up such decisions of whether evolution is true or not.

Do you even know or understand Mutations or Genetic Drift or Gene Flow?

These are other possible mechanisms to evolution, other than Natural Selection.

Your limited education, and your lack of qualification/experience, don’t make you an expert to challenge evolutionary biology.

And you cannot use the Bible to explain anything regarding to biology of animals and or biology of plants, as it don’t provide any real world information of either subject.

In Genesis 2:7, it say god created fully grown human male from dust, which I would assume to be “soil”, since god would create the Garden of Eden in the following verses.

But as I said to you before, soil are made of 45% minerals, mostly of silicate minerals (eg feldspars, quartz, micas are most common minerals found in soils). But there are not single silicate of any kind existing in a human body.

The point is that silicates are inorganic matters. You cannot possibly turn inorganic silicates into living organic tissues.

Every tissues are made of cells, and there are also no silicate in any cells.

So saying that you believe in creationism, like what it described in Genesis 2:7, only demonstrated creationists believe in false claims, where the authors of Genesis have no clues about living cells.

If you cannot understand that soil cannot turn into living tissues of human being, then you are just as uneducated in biology as the Genesis authors.

Btw, the “god did it”, or god is omnipotent and there “can do everything”, isn’t explanation of human biology. It is pure ignorant superstition.

 

[gnostic]

Life itself is the proof of God's existence. I recognize you do not believe that. That is obviously your right to decide.

If that your faulty argument, then rainbow itself is the proof of leprechaun existing on the other side with a pot of gold.

That’s not how existence works.

Your claim is just confirmation bias, circular reasoning and argument from ignorance, all rolled into one.

 

[YoursTrue]

You don’t understand enough basic biology to make up such decisions of whether evolution is true or not.

Do you even know or understand Mutations or Genetic Drift or Gene Flow?

These are other possible mechanisms to evolution, other than Natural Selection.

Your limited education, and your lack of qualification/experience, don’t make you an expert to challenge evolutionary biology.

And you cannot use the Bible to explain anything regarding to biology of animals and or biology of plants, as it don’t provide any real world information of either subject.

In Genesis 2:7, it say god created fully grown human male from dust, which I would assume to be “soil”, since god would create the Garden of Eden in the following verses.

But as I said to you before, soil are made of 45% minerals, mostly of silicate minerals (eg feldspars, quartz, micas are most common minerals found in soils). But there are not single silicate of any kind existing in a human body.

The point is that silicates are inorganic matters. You cannot possibly turn inorganic silicates into living organic tissues.

Every tissues are made of cells, and there are also no silicate in any cells.

So saying that you believe in creationism, like what it described in Genesis 2:7, only demonstrated creationists believe in false claims, where the authors of Genesis have no clues about living cells.

If you cannot understand that soil cannot turn into living tissues of human being, then you are just as uneducated in biology as the Genesis authors.

Btw, the “god did it”, or god is omnipotent and there “can do everything”, isn’t explanation of human biology. It is pure ignorant superstition.

Again, here is what I am saying...some questions may never be answered. One of the reasons is that we are humans.

 

[YoursTrue]

If that your faulty argument, then rainbow itself is the proof of leprechaun existing on the other side with a pot of gold.

That’s not how existence works.

Your claim is just confirmation bias, circular reasoning and argument from ignorance, all rolled into one.

The fact that you make the comparison about rainbows and leprechauns as if that's a valid form of dissent tells me you do not comprehend. Be that as it may... hope you have a good evening.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Life itself is the proof of God's existence. I recognize you do not believe that. That is obviously your right to decide.

How so? Just declaring it as evidence does not make it so. I can explain why a particular fossil is part of the evidence for evolution. Yet I am betting that you cannot explain this claim at all. You are back to calling your God a liar.

 

[ratiocinator]

Again, as I examined the teachings and precepts of the basic content of the theory of evolution, it no longer adds up to me.

Yet you demonstrate time and time again that you know practically nothing about evidence, as you demonstrated yet again in #6,731.

But if it makes sense to you despite the fact that it is basically conjecture...

Again, this is simply untrue. The amount of comprehensive and solid evidence for it make it one of the most certain theories in all of science.

...we do have ability to choose for ourselves what we will accept as true.

Yes, you can accept the vast amounts of comprehensive evidence for it, or you can stick your head in the sand, refuse to even listen to all the evidence you don't like and resort to blind faith supported by no evidence whatsoever.

 

[ratiocinator]

Life itself is the proof of God's existence.

This shows that you don't even understand the concept of evidence. You can't use a phenomenon itself as evidence for one hypothesis about how it came about. As I post elsewhere to somebody who said something similar:

"Gravity is caused by tiny pixies and pull things around."
"What is your evidence for that?"
"Gravity exists."

See? Utter nonsense, but that is logically equivalent to what you said above. Alternatively, think of a murder trial:

"What is your evidence that this man is guilty?"
"The victim is dead."

 

[cladking]

You can't use a phenomenon itself as evidence for one hypothesis about how it came about.

Yet the fossil record is "one of the most certain theories in all of science" that species change gradually because of survival of the fittest!!!

 

[gnostic]

Life itself is the proof of God's existence.

This shows that you don't even understand the concept of evidence. You can't use a phenomenon itself as evidence for one hypothesis about how it came about.

Yet the fossil record is "one of the most certain theories in all of science" that species change gradually because of survival of the fittest!!!

What YoursTrue claimed is circular reasoning, and confirmation bias.

There are no evidence to support her reasoning...which isn’t reasoning at all, just her personal belief. Hence, the confirmation bias.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yet the fossil record is "one of the most certain theories in all of science" that species change gradually because of survival of the fittest!!!

The fossil record isn't a theory, it's part of the observed evidence for the theory of evolution. Not even the most important part today as genetics provides much more comprehensive evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

What YoursTrue claimed is circular reasoning, and confirmation bias.

There are no evidence to support her reasoning...which isn’t reasoning at all, just her personal belief. Hence, the confirmation bias.

I used to believe as you believe. But wondering more about Darwin and evolution as it expanded -- reading about "Neanderthal" genes influencing "present-day" humans, a fascinating exposition says that those with "Neanderthal" genes are prone to: depression, urinary tract infections..." What? I say...lol...
So in response, can you explain more about this and whether you believe it?
Also, I notice artists' rendering of facial features of "Neanderthals," and supposedly they have recessed chins? So wondering if those with recessed chins have lots of "Neanderthal" genes...passed over who knows how many times -- ???

how do people know what neanderthal dna is? - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

 

[YoursTrue]

What YoursTrue claimed is circular reasoning, and confirmation bias.

There are no evidence to support her reasoning...which isn’t reasoning at all, just her personal belief. Hence, the confirmation bias.

Fossil record does NOT confirm the theory of evolution re: "survival of the fittest," and/or "natural selection." Believe as you will...so be it...it almost sounds like prejudicial opinion based on belief in the veracity of the theory. Without justification in the details because -- there is no proof of any details of any group of fish, for example, morphing (I mean evolving) to landlubbers. Pictures, yes, of presumed organisms coming from water dwellers, but -- no more than presumptions. If people such as yourself cannot admit that -- all I have to say is -- oh, well, have a good one!

 

[cladking]

The fossil record isn't a theory, it's part of the observed evidence for the theory of evolution. Not even the most important part today as genetics provides much more comprehensive evidence.

As I've tried many times to explain the simple fact is all evidence is open to interpretation. If the fossil record is the best thing you have then you have no theory at all but rather just conjecture based on Darwin's beliefs.

All true theory is based on experiment and no experiment shows a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. All observation shows a sudden change that typically occurs at bottlenecks and results from behavior rather than fitness.