Darwin's Illusion

[YoursTrue]

I don’t think random mutation (DNA replication errors) work at all other that damaging the original function of a gene. Regardless of any wishes/fairytales about LUCA transforming into elephants, such imagination doesn’t work.

I’m neither a child nor an incapacitated adult.

It has every thing to do with evolutionary biology, the ToE postulates that time, random mutations and selection pressures allowed all various body plans of all life on earth to appear. If no selection pressure exists for human wings, why don’t you go jump between trees every single day of your life and hope for the best? If you have created the selection pressure; now just wait for the random mutations. Good luck. But please be careful not to break your neck.

Forget about wishes, we know it's not part of the theory but if you think about it, it may contribute to the selection pressure. So, if we forget about wishes, do you think human wings are possible through evolutionary means?

Considering all various body plans, why not gradual transformation towards a new body plan that support 2 more limbs?

The Korowai tribe live in 140-foot high tree houses, the selection pressure is there, what are the chances to grow some membrane to help gliding between trees or fly like bats? Again, if from single celled organism to human is possible, why not gradual transformation to a new body plan that supports wings?

Meet the Korowai Tribe of Papua New Guinea | Culture Trip (theculturetrip.com)

I’m not talking about deformity but rather an advantages gradual change towards a new body plan that supports wings, would it ever happen?

Hello. I started reading Richard Dawkins book as he contends against the idea of intelligent design. Promoting evolution. I certainly am not speaking for or against the idea of intelligent design now until I see a complete definition of it, then I may comment, but I will say what I read in the book is sad. To clarify, I do believe in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, just so you understand what I believe.

 

[John53]

I didn't say that. I am simply repeating that according to scientific positions, proof is not a part of the scientific theories being promoted.

Nobody disagrees so what is your point!!!!

And you keep avoiding showing proof of your claims.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nobody disagrees so what is your point!!!!

And you keep avoiding showing proof of your claims.

As someone else pointed out here, not that you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, but even some living at the time who saw him refused to acknowledge him as the son of God who also performed miracles.

 

[John53]

As someone else pointed out here, not that you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, but even some living at the time who saw him refused to acknowledge him as the son of God who also performed miracles.

I have no idea what that means. Maybe you should just say what you think and not parrot others.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no idea what that means. Maybe you should just say what you think and not parrot others.

I did say what I believe and I agree with some others here.

 

[John53]

I did say what I believe and I agree with some others here.

Great, that tells me a lot

How about answering my question that asked why do you keep repeating "science doesn't use proof"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As someone else pointed out here, not that you believe in the Jesus of the Bible, but even some living at the time who saw him refused to acknowledge him as the son of God who also performed miracles.

That is probably because when it came to miracles he would have been a fraud.

 

[YoursTrue]

That cannot be otherwise. We will necessarily evolve into something that cannot be called human, anymore. Like having four eyes, or a forehead the size of football. Or get extinct before.

But why don't you like it?

Ciao

- viole

so far anything beneficial (as if 4 eyes might be beneficial) has not been happening, has it? If anything, humans are moving into a completely self-destructive state. But it's not genetic evolution. Or maybe it is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

so far anything beneficial (as if 4 eyes might be beneficial) has not been happening, has it? If anything, humans are moving into a completely self-destructive state. But it's not genetic evolution. Or maybe it is.

Once a trait is well set it is very hard to change. Our ancient ancestors had two eyes and evolution is often a "one way street". There is no going back and re-evolving traits. That is why all tetrapods have a recurrent laryngeal nerve. It is bad enough in humans, crazy in giraffes, and bat**** crazy in whales. It would be nice if we could go back and evolve a direction route, but that is set too deeply in our genome.

Oh, and evidence like that tells us that we are the product of evolution. Evolution works on "good enough". So we find workarounds for what would be flawed design. If life was designed by an intelligent designer we should not see such bad engineering.

 

[Kenny]

How did life originate?

evolution.berkeley.edu

I am curious... do we have any evidence of this? I mean, empirical and verifiable evidence..

I see the words "must have been "; "could have been synthesized in the atmosphere"; could have "rained down"

Do we have scientific evidence to support this claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

View attachment 81849

How did life originate?

evolution.berkeley.edu

I am curious... do we have any evidence of this? I mean, empirical and verifiable evidence..

I see the words "must have been "; "could have been synthesized in the atmosphere"; could have "rained down"

Do we have scientific evidence to support this claim?

Yes, Are you not familiar with the Miller Urey experiment? It showed that this simple step was possible. And not only could they have formed naturally on the Earth. They could have done so in space as well. We have carbonaceous chondrite meteors with nucleic acids and other building blocks of life in them. That is very old news.

 

[Kenny]

Yes, Are you not familiar with the Miller Urey experiment? It showed that this simple step was possible. And not only could they have formed naturally on the Earth. They could have done so in space as well. We have carbonaceous chondrite meteors with nucleic acids and other building blocks of life in them. That is very old news.

Yes, I believe it was " could have arisen from inorganic compounds during Earth’s prebiotic phase. ". I find interesting that it was under extreme control, with the elimination of any other variable that could affect it and that "Scientists have also considered the possibility that meteors brought the first organic molecules"

Miller-Urey experiment | Description, Purpose, Results, & Facts

Miller-Urey experiment, experimental simulation conducted in 1953 that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiogenically, that is, formed from chemical reactions occurring between inorganic molecules thought

www.britannica.com

But I am not asking for very controlled Intelligent Designed possibilities that include "could have" and "possibility"...

I am asking for empirical and verifiable evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I believe it was " could have arisen from inorganic compounds during Earth’s prebiotic phase. ". I find interesting that it was under extreme control, with the elimination of any other variable that could affect it and that "Scientists have also considered the possibility that meteors brought the first organic molecules"

Miller-Urey experiment | Description, Purpose, Results, & Facts

Miller-Urey experiment, experimental simulation conducted in 1953 that attempted to replicate the conditions of Earth’s early atmosphere and oceans to test whether organic molecules could be created abiogenically, that is, formed from chemical reactions occurring between inorganic molecules thought

www.britannica.com

But I am not asking for very controlled Intelligent Designed possibilities that include "could have" and "possibility"...

I am asking for empirical and verifiable evidence.

I am unclear as to what you do not understand? And before I even try to give you answers to very complex science, why do you even care about abiogenesis? If you cannot come up with an honest response then there really is no point in trying to explain this to you.

 

[Kenny]

I am unclear as to what you do not understand? And before I even try to give you answers to very complex science, why do you even care about abiogenesis? If you cannot come up with an honest response then there really is no point in trying to explain this to you.

Oh... what you are saying is that the "possibility" - "could be" - and "maybe it came from the heavens in the form of a meteor" is your religious "by faith" stance on how it all began because you have no empirical and verifiable evidence and then you sluff it off as "very complex" - like the Spaghetti Monster?

In other words, the religious stance you have is sooo complex at the very beginning when there was so little to be complex about, that all of a sudden "POOF" - life began replicating RNA and DNA - and your very empirical and verifiable evidence is a VERY controlled Intelligent Designed laboratory trying to create the PERFECT conditions for your Spaghetti Monster to create life sending meteorite that your god created.

You are very religious.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hello. I started reading Richard Dawkins book as he contends against the idea of intelligent design. Promoting evolution. I certainly am not speaking for or against the idea of intelligent design now until I see a complete definition of it, then I may comment, but I will say what I read in the book is sad. To clarify, I do believe in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, just so you understand what I believe.

@L

View attachment 81849

How did life originate?

evolution.berkeley.edu

I am curious... do we have any evidence of this? I mean, empirical and verifiable evidence..

I see the words "must have been "; "could have been synthesized in the atmosphere"; could have "rained down"

Do we have scientific evidence to support this claim?

That's correct. And I even got that famous book by Richard Dawkins and that's how it goes. It's almost a joke but sad. So the next question is about intelligence. Bees make hives and honey, humans have different skills. Guaranteed many will say, that's how their genes evolved. (Lol)

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, Are you not familiar with the Miller Urey experiment? It showed that this simple step was possible. And not only could they have formed naturally on the Earth. They could have done so in space as well. We have carbonaceous chondrite meteors with nucleic acids and other building blocks of life in them. That is very old news.

Nonsense. Miller Urey experiment proved that testtubes and electricity were needed. Baloney.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am unclear as to what you do not understand? And before I even try to give you answers to very complex science, why do you even care about abiogenesis? If you cannot come up with an honest response then there really is no point in trying to explain this to you.

You cannot have socalled evolution without abiogenesis. Get over it. But it's interesting to see truth deniers continue to refuse to see and admit the truth. Evolution is not possible without abiogenesis. Keep going. Guesswork about the first items starting socalled evolution and more guesswork about how it started. Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh... what you are saying is that the "possibility" - "could be" - and "maybe it came from the heavens in the form of a meteor" is your religious "by faith" stance on how it all began because you have no empirical and verifiable evidence and then you sluff it off as "very complex" - like the Spaghetti Monster?

In other words, the religious stance you have is sooo complex at the very beginning when there was so little to be complex about, that all of a sudden "POOF" - life began replicating RNA and DNA - and your very empirical and verifiable evidence is a VERY controlled Intelligent Designed laboratory trying to create the PERFECT conditions for your Spaghetti Monster to create life sending meteorite that your god created.

You are very religious.

You should understand scientific language by now.


And just because you are scientifically illiterate that does not mean that others are religious. Right now you are not being honest enough to be able to demand anything.


If you apologize for your false statements perhaps we can have a discussion. but right now you, like others,, only merit corrections.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You cannot have socalled evolution without abiogenesis. Get over it. But it's interesting to see truth deniers continue to refuse to see and admit the truth. Evolution is not possible without abiogenesis. Keep going. Guesswork about the first items starting socalled evolution and more guesswork about how it started. Thank you.

That is not true and has been explained to you many times. Okay, there has to be an abiogenesis event, but it does not have to be natural abiogenesis. Now all of the evidence does support natural abiogenesis and only natural abiogenesis, but evolution does not rely on that.

How many times have you had to be told that if a God wanted to she could have magically poofed the first life into existence. Or are you going to limit God somehow?

 

[blü 2]

Ernst Mayr said that evolutionary biology doesn’t belong to the exact sciences. See #331

That seems reasonable as long as it's properly understood.

Science with evolution as elsewhere works constantly with examinable evidence, tests and retests its hypotheses, new insights, old conclusions. Thus while "mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosomal Adam" are hard to pinpoint in time, it's possible to derive from the evidence a likely-not-later-than-A and a likely-not-earlier-than-B in each case. Hence further examinable evidence may affirm, refute or confuse aspects of them, but not the fact that they existed, perhaps 50,000 years apart, in human history.

Alternatives to science rely on magic ─ the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality. Unfortunately for this position, the number of authenticated examples remains at zero.