Different Opinions....Who is right?

[Yazata]

Evolution isn't an 'opinion'; it is a proven fact/theory.

You seem to be describing an article of faith.

Biological evolution by natural selection is a hypothesis that plays the role of a theory in biological thought. Where 'theory' means something like 'explanatory scheme'. It hasn't been "proven" in any literal sense like we find in mathematics or logic. It's hard to see how it would even be possible to perform that wonder.

'Evolution' means change over time. Many things change over time for many different reasons. So there are lots of different theories of evolution. In astrophysics there's stellar evolution on and off the 'main sequence'. Much of the mathematics of physics exists to describe the evolution of the states of physical systems over time.

'Darwinism' seems to refer to biological evolution by natural selection. That's often what 'the theory of evolution' is taken to mean in everyday speech.

Natural selection is a hypothesis about the mechanism of taxonomic change over time. (Perhaps we can call hypotheses about underlying mechanisms 'theories'.)

Then there are hypothetical reconstructions of ancestral and taxonomic relationships. For example, consider the hypothesized evolution of whales. If we just list all the organisms found in the fossil record that may or may not be relatives of whales, we can construct many different hypothetical trees that may or may not show the organisms' true relationships.

These relationships aren't something that is directly observed and they don't just pop out of 'Darwin' or 'natural selection' by any kind of turn-the-crank method. The taxonomic trees are constructed by biologists using a variety of different methods chosen for a variety of often a-priori theoretical reasons (see the link below), and natural selection is subsequently introduced to explain the hypothesized changes as one traverses the tree from root to branch.

https://www.shsu.edu/~sanford/Biology/Comparative Lecture.html

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I will curse God for cancer when you praise Him for sunsets.

Really? So you are admitting that God is responsibile for cancer, you just won't curse him for it until @SkepticThinker praises him for sunsets?

What you seem to be saying, then, is if SkepticThinker doesn't believe in God, you are fine with the God you believe in being the author of all evil, as well as good. Well, that's a start...

 

[cladking]

Scientific Theory:

a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation: the scientific theory of evolution

That's not a very good definition.

"Theory" is about experiment. I don't consider "evolution" a "theory" at all since there are multiple interpretations for all the experiments and observation.

Species change but that doesn't mean we can look at the fossil record and deduce how they changed.

 

[gnostic]

Believers would see an exquisitely crafted creature designed by an intelligent Creator to be invisible to predators but facilitating catching prey of its own.

If God made all creatures vegetarian (as per the bible) and later on some of those herbivores became carnivores, was that change God's doing as well?

Yes, I’ve heard claims made by creationists before, that all creatures were vegetarians or herbivores before the Genesis Flood.

If the story of Ark landing somewhere in the mountains of Ararat, then you should have trails of animals fanning out from Ararat, and animals dying and leaving their remains behind before reach their destined homeland.

For instances, the travel from Ararat to Australia would lead remains of dead marsupials from Ararat to Australia, but there are no such evidence. Wombats and koalas are not fast-moving animals and would have been easy preys to predators, to make such hazardous treks to Australia. And with distances of tens of thousands of kilometres, the koalas and wombats have died out because they don’t have energy and stamina for such journey.

If creationists, and considering Deeje is Australian like me, she should know that koalas spend much of their lives up on trees, feeding on leaves and most of their days sleeping. If they run out of leaves, they will only travel as far as the nearest trees; they don’t travel kilometres of wilderness to seek new homes.

Creationists are just so unrealistic in their belief.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One "kind" cannot transform into another "kind" of creature. (see below) A land dweller did not morph into a whale.

I think it did. I get my science from scientists, not creationists. They disagree with your pastor and church.

The Peppered moth is often given as a classic example of evolution. Its number one on this list...
8 Examples of Evolution in Action - Listverse
This is adaptation.....not evolution.

Biological evolution is a form of adaptation. It is the adaptation of living populations over time due to random changes in allele frequencies in the population being selected for or against by the local environment to better exploit natural resources in order to propagate more.

There are other kinds of adaptation, such as tanning when lying in the sun. This is physical, but not genetic and involves an organism, not a population.

And we adapt nonphysically as we are now in lockdown.

Simply calling biological evolution adaptation doesn't make it not biological evolution.

What Darwin observed on the Galapagos Islands was not new creatures but simply new varieties of creatures that existed on the mainland which had adapted to a different environment and a change in food supply.

That's new creatures. That's biological evolution.

Or maybe you think those morphologies all "adapted" to their separate niches without concomitant modification of their DNA.

You can't do this effectively if you can't speak to the scientifically literate in their own language. You accomplish the opposite of your apparent intention. What effect do you imagine arguing

Their family relationship to the finch family had not changed and never would have. All that was altered with the finches was their beaks due to a different food supply.

And that's biological evolution as well. You describe evolution and call it adaptation as if that makes it not evolution. It doesn't.

If the existence of a Creator is proven, (as I believe it will be) then the theory of evolution will evaporate into thin air....along with all who thought they could eliminate God from his own creation.

Yes, but the Christian god has already been ruled out by the existing evidence even if its current interpretation, naturalistic evolution over geological time, is ever overturned by a falsifying finding.

Think about it. I've made this point to you several times in the past, but you like to pretend that you didn't see it.

I don't think the theory will ever be overthrown, but consider for a moment the implications of its falsification. Those mountains of data that previously supported the theory suddenly shown to be wrong wouldn't go away. They would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the new falsifying finding, which could only mean that mankind was pranked by a great, powerful deceiver that went to great lengths to make man think that evolution as we understand it had occurred, including planting fossils of creatures that never lived such that older and more primitive appearing forms appear in the deepest strata, carefully setting the ratio of radioisotopes to fool man regarding dates, creating all of those nested hierarchies including inserting ERVs into genomes as part of the great deception, scattering the ring species to appear that they had evolved, and the like.

That doesn't rescue Christian creationism, which is already ruled out by that evidence whether naturalistic evolution or a great deception occurred. The Christian god is said to be beneficent, hones, loving, and wants to be known, loved, believed, worshiped, etc.. The only gods not ruled out by the existing evidence are prankster gods like Loki.

I don't really need your reply. Every time you make that same claim, you'll be inviting me to rebut it like this.

"Kinds" remain constant.

Kinds is a meaningless term in science, where words are defined clearly and their is consensus on what they mean. Let's use scientific term to discuss scientific concepts.

Whatever kinds are, species don't remain constant even between generations. Or are your children clones of you?

Lines cannot be crossed.

The theory agrees. In fact, it predicts it.

It's a creationist myth that the theory teaches that dogs become cats or that dogs are said to be able to give birth to kittens.

This attributing everything to "Mother Nature".....seems to be to be praising the wrong parent.

When we need a god, we'll posit one.

So far, science keeps making progress without a concept of gods, never finds a god or any finding better explained by a god than by a natural processes, and no scientific theory gets increased explanatory or predictive power by injecting a god into it - not even if you add three gods to the theory.

Did any of these leave a book to tell us about the past, present and future? To give us wisdom and knowledge so that we don't fall for the fairy tales?

What you are calling wisdom and knowledge I call fairy tales. I can't use anything in that book for anything. The few places I agree, I didn't get the idea there.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I love David Attenborough's work but I watch his docos with the sound off.

Of course you do. Just like your posting, pretty pictures and no science.

Isn't that how you have gone through all of life - with the sound off for science? You know so little science, and actively avoid learning it to the point of taking the trouble to mute the TV, but still publicly argue against science and expect to be respected and taken seriously by those who know why you're wrong.

What do you think your ethos is - your credibility - with you audience? Do you think they consider you informed and reliable?

what makes you think we Bible believers hate science?

You attack or dismiss scientific knowledge that contradicts your religious beliefs before ever learning it, calling it bogus science, which I suppose is any science that contradicts your religious beliefs.

You don't seem to have a problem with the sciences of sound, electricity, or gravity, for example, but I'm pretty sure that if your scriptures and the science of any of these were in contradiction, you would start calling the science junk science, assumption, speculation, no proof, never been observed - the usual suspects.

It isn't science that we hate....its the lies perpetuated by science to support a theory that has no real evidence to back it up

And there it is. But you don't hate science, do you? Just its lies and liars.

Who's telling you which science is lies, and based on what distinction? What's the difference between the science you fight and the science that you are indifferent to? (rhetorical question, no answer needed)

Here's another question I've asked you a dozen times, and reliably evade it every time. This one isn't rhetorical and does ask for an answer

"Are you proposing that we throw out a scientific theory that has unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, and trade it in for a sterile idea like creationism that can do none of those things? Why would we? Why would you?"

Would you? Haven't you done that? What sound reason can you give to believe in creationism? You never give any reason.

Science does not KNOW for certain how anything came from nothing, let alone how an amoeba somehow transformed itself over millions of years into something the size of a three story building.

Actually, science does know how reptiles evolved from unicellular marine life. You don't.

What tests did scientists do on the apes that they assumed were early man?

If you cared about the science, you would already know it. If you want to learn the science, do like the rest of us did. Go to university. Read textbooks and lay literature on science.

There's a fundamental difference between the scientifically literate posters we see on RF and creationists. The former love science, and it shows in their treatment of it.

Typically, they have been fascinated by science since childhood. They asked for chemistry sets and Radio Shack or Heath kits as kids.

They read about science in their Highlights magazines.

They enjoyed biology, chemistry and physics in high school, took electives in them there and in university, and needed no prompting to study and learn it.

They'll probably major in a science and choose a career in science.

If old enough, they were glued to the TV during the Apollo missions, and have been following the space program ever since.

They subscribe to the likes of Scientific American and Sky & Telescope.

Many such people own or owned telescopes and became amateur astronomers and star gazers.

And they continued their science education after graduating by reading pop science books like those I mentioned that are sold at bookstores such as Barnes & Noble or B. Dalton, books written for lay consumption by people like Paul Davies, John Gribben, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, and Ilya Prigogine.

They have watched uncounted science documentaries from NatGeo and Nova, watched every episode of both Sagan's and Tyson's Cosmos series, and still watch these types of shows today. They have been fascinated by science for decades, and have extensive educations in it.

Creationists don't do that, and are found are later in life still wandering in scientific darkness.

Creationists have no interest in or use for science except to try to use bits of it against itself. That's what I mean by enemies of science - no interest in it until they learn it contradicts their religion, then they learn a few words like adaptation and macroevolution, and hit the Internet to argue with people grounded in science.

There is no proof whatsoever that early humans were ape-like.

Proof is the wrong word, and we don't call all of man's ancestors early humans. There is good evidence that Austrolopithecus afarennsis (Lucy) was basically a bipedal chimp-like animal - short, hairy, 450 cc cranial capacity (like a chimp, man is triple that).

You really are in no position to be arguing about science. You'll need to learn more of it first.

Besides, you and I are both apelike, because we're apes.

When it was ascertained that early man was less ape-like than they first thought, the illustrations changed to depict more upright apes. Not because they found apes that were more upright, but because it looked better on the illustration, carrying the idea of this upright ape ancestor, which never actually existed.

Science grows with new evidence. You seem to consider that a flaw. It's actually one of its great virtues, along with being skeptical, empirical and self-correcting.

A lab cannot duplicate evolution

Actually, evolution has been observed in labs. And nobody is trying to duplicate evolution. It happens naturally. Nothing need be done but observe it. We don't expect nature to reproduce her previous evolutionary path.

The Moon landing? I can't confirm that it ever happened or that it wasn't filmed in a studio....can you?

Where do you suppose those astronauts were for the several days between launch and splashdown? Some have suggested that they were just orbiting the earth. But the Soviets would have detected that and ratted America out rather than let it claim victory in the space race. Also, you've got about 4 million man years of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians, administrators, etc.. that need to either believe that the crews were on the moon or keep the secret.

Biological evolution by natural selection is a hypothesis

Yes, an also a scientific theory. It's settled science.

People found useful remedies and antidotes before science

Any empirical testing that generates rules that can be used successfully to anticipate outcomes is science. People experimenting with barks and herbs to generate rules that would achieve a desired outcome such as lessening suffering or induce sleep are doing science. The people doing it professionally in lab coats in laboratories and observatories aren't doing anything fundamentally different epistemologically speaking. It's all empirical discovery.

they also found superstition and ugly beliefs that hurt themselves and their fellow man

That's what happens when you divorce yourself from empiricism. When you sever the connection with physical evidence, you go from science to religion.

Nobody is more dogmatic or holier than thou than a scientist

Science is not dogmatic. Religion is. Science is tentative, flexible, and amenable to revision if new evidence warrants it. It's conclusions have transparent arguments, understandable if ones has the necessary skills and knowledge to follow a scientific argument.

Dogma is, "a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true." No evidence or argument need be given. Dogma is just declared to be correct without justification or any way to modify it. That's religion.

The science behind the Theory of Evolution is so substantial and confirming of the model that it would take some absolutely earth-shattering discovery to overturn it.

 

[cladking]

Any empirical testing that generates rules that can be used successfully to anticipate outcomes is science. People experimenting with barks and herbs to generate rules that would achieve a desired outcome such as lessening suffering or induce sleep are doing science. The people doing it professionally in lab coats in laboratories and observatories aren't doing anything fundamentally different epistemologically speaking. It's all empirical discovery.

It doesn't matter what semantics are used; ONLY observation > experiment is true modern "science". I never said all knowledge derives from modern science.

That's what happens when you divorce yourself from empiricism. When you sever the connection with physical evidence, you go from science to religion.

You are assuming that what we call "theory" is real DESPITE the fact it isn't based on experiment. You are assuming that we haven't divorced ourselves from empirical evidence despite universal agreement on numerous tenets and conclusions that have no evidential support. We are rushing headlong into a dark ages and people can't see it because we are told science is infallible and opinion of experts is unassailable. We have been killing ourselves for 150 year and it accelerates every passing day.

Science is tentative, flexible, and amenable to revision if new evidence warrants it. It's conclusions have transparent arguments, understandable if ones has the necessary skills and knowledge to follow a scientific argument.

I understand the ideal but science doesn't come from a lab as often any longer as it comes from consensus or vote. So long as the experts agree they don't need no stinkin' experiment.

 

[Deeje]

You aren't aware about how the building blocks of life spontanously form through naturall occuring chemistry?
We even find them in space rocks.

You should try paying more attention.

Well, I paid attention to the fact that none of the building blocks are alive. And no matter how you construct them, life would not result. We get back to what "life" is and how it began....."life comes from pre-existing life"....when has science ever found that to be untrue? Only in their pet theory.

False equivocation.

You have a computer inside your head...how is it a false equivocation? Can a computer make its own components and assemble them in the correct sequence and then program itself to perform complex and interrelated functions without an intelligent programmer? When has science ever found that to be true? Only in their pet theory.

Claiming it, doesn't make it so.
And ignoring the role of natural seleciton, is not going to help you in your attempt at disproving one of the best understood and most evidenced processes in all of science.

What does natural selection accomplish? It keeps the "kinds" separated so that creatures remain in their families.
Adaptation can take a creature and make modifications in that creature to adapt to a new environment or food source but it can never take a creature and turn it into something else. When has science ever observed that? Only according to their pet theory.

If tomorrow a "creator" of first life is proven, not one iota of evolution theory would change because all the evidence for it would remain unchanged

Instead, abiogenesis would have it's "creation" theory.

LOL....I'm not talking about a "Creator of first life"....that would suit the fence sitters very well.....I am talking about the Creator of ALL life. If the Creator was to make his existence manifest, and it became clear that his version of events was true, then who do you think will be first on his hit list for misleading others to disbelieve him?....to disrespect his genius and to treat him as of no account in connection with his own creation? Isn't this why humans take out patents, so that others will not steal their ideas and claim them and take the credit for themselves? What do you think these scientists are doing? They appear to be shouting accolades to "Mother Nature" as if she is the sole 'parent' in this scenario.....I assure you that most living things need two 'parents'.

Well, at least "the magic" that we apparantly "believe in", can be reproduced in experiments

Experimental Evolution of Multicellular Complexity in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

I love it when people give me links......here is an interesting paragraph....

"Although understanding the astounding diversity and abundance of multicellular life is the focus of much biological research, the foundational basis for multicellular diversity (its origin from unicellular ancestors) remains obscure. Direct experimentation (in contrast to comparative or theoretical approaches) would be ideal to determine the causative factors in the origins of multicellularity. Such experiments would identify the environmental conditions promoting multicellularity and the genetic changes involved. The importance of selection, drift, mutation, and sex could be determined, as could the repeatability of specific evolutionary changes. Focusing on the first steps would avoid the obscuring complexity of subsequent evolution. Unfortunately, opportunities for such direct experimentation are limited. Although multicellularity has evolved repeatedly in different eukaryotic lineages (Grosberg and Strathmann 2007), the most recent of these transitions, in brown (Brown and Sorhannus 2010) and volvocine algae (Herron et al. 2009), occurred approximately 200 million years ago, which makes direct investigation of their origins impossible. Moreover, prior work suggests that the crucial early steps may have taken millions of years (e.g., Herron et al. 2009)."

IOW.....they have no way to go back and test their theories about early cellular life....and unless you think we are related to yeast, what is the point? Please don't tell me that you think we are related to bananas as well....

Yes, like the Law of Monophy in evolution theory says. You can't outgrow your ancestry.

Ah yes...monophy.....you seem a little obsessed with this word as if it somehow explains anything....
It simply explains why the finches will always be finches, which is what Darwin observed. All his finches were simply different varieties of the one "kind" of bird. And no matter how much time elapsed, Darwin would not have seen those finches transform into some other "kind" of bird. Regardless of whether they could interbreed or not, it didn't change their breed. So where did the original finches come from? What were the ancestors of all the bird species if they can only breed with their own "kind"? You see its all the early stages of evolution that present evolutionists with their guesswork, which we can see at times, is very creative.

 

[Deeje]

Yes, like the Law of Monophy in evolution theory says. You can't outgrow your ancestry.

And yet according to the theory of evolution.....everything did. The ancestor of us all found a way to produce "kinds" that completely outgrew their ancestry. Microscopic cells found a way to transform themselves into gigantic creatures, and medium sized creatures, and very tiny insects.....some of which live in very different environments. How clever of them to figure out how to do that with not a brain between them.

Like in ring species, which show that your attempt at defining the term "kind" as those that can interbreed is hogwash.

For example, consider these geographic locations. Each location holds a population of a species:

Ring species eh?....what do we know about ring species...?

"In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population.[1] Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region (sympatry) thus closing a "ring"."

So where is the change in "kind" if all "species" remain within the same family? I think people confuse the term "species" to mean a new "kind" rather than a new "variety" of the same "kind". A "species" is not a new creature. Speciation is about variety within a "kind".

A whale is a vertebrate, chordate, mammal.
So is the 4-legged animal it evolved from.

Where was the change in "kind" exactly?

According to my 'textbook', the marine creatures and flying creatures came first, and the land dwellers followed.
They are two separate creations with two completely different environments to call home.
What about the amphibians? Since they are air breathers, they can exist quite happily in both environments as they were designed to do. Look at how many mammals make their home in the water....some come out of the water to breed, other stay in the oceans. I see no evolutionary relationships because there is none unless you want to imply such. I have no need to imply that.

To me creation explains all the things science is still uncertain about. The Bible is a simple explanation of a complex event. I love the simplicity. And I don't need a science degree to dazzle people with incomprehensible nonsense.

The law of monophy tell sus that if these finches would evolve into non-finches, then evolution theory would be falsified.

So you are basically saying that the law of monophy argues with evolution, which teaches that all life came from a single cell that just magically appeared one day with all the necessary equipment to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever existed? So which is it...?

That species can divert to the point of not longer being able to produce fertile off spring, is quite known.
That species can divert further to the point of no longer being able to produce off spring full stop, is also quite known.

Like in ring species, which show that your attempt at defining the term "kind" as those that can interbreed is hogwash.

LOL, I think you are basically arguing with yourself....since fertility is vital for life to be transmitted, then monophy confirms that fertility is limited to those who are attracted to one another genetically, via signals that they are designed to respond to....dancing or courtship rituals, pheromones, or just opportunity. They have to be of the same species to do that, but even if the different species cannot interbreed, it does not remove them from their original 'family' or place them into a new one.

Incidentally, I never said anything about being able to interbreed. If mules are infertile they can't breed with other mules....they are the same species....No?

If you really think these people aren't aware of the relative sizes of each of these species, or even worse: if you think that the authors of these papers ARE aware of it, but malicious pretend as if it isn't the case while assuming their readers to not be aware of it.... then sorry, but you are simply delusional.

You seem to forget that many of these graphs are used to teach students who are at the mercy of science. They have no option but to learn evolution in school, which is carried over into university and its all a foregone conclusion in their minds by the time they get there....so, yes I do believe it is designed to give a false impression.

Ask any science student if they believe in evolution and you will invariably get a positive YES....but ask them to furnish proof that evolution took place by presenting concrete evidence, and they can't do it. Why? Because they are indoctrinated before they get into their tertiary studies, which simply reinforces all that they have already been convinced is the truth. They are not taught to question.....or the ridicule will follow.

Further still, the common ancestor of all mammals (including whales and humans) is a small shrew-like creature that roamd the age of dino's some 150 million years ago.

Oh those elusive "common ancestors"...can you find them all for me? Even a few would do, but you have to prove that they are related, not just presenting with "similarities"....like an ear bone. If an ear bone can make a whale out of a small dog-like creature, then there is a magician in your midst.

Considering your continued display of ignorance of things like the law of monophy, I'm going to assume the latter.

And here is the name calling..... it always ends like this.....no substance that provides concrete evidence, just vague suggestions and "might haves" or "could haves"....I can use those descriptors too.

However, plenty of the stuff your wrote here... I know you HAVE BEEN corrected on those mistakes in the past. And you didn't correct yourself. So I could just as well assume deliberate dishonesty.

"Corrected"?....funny I have seen no corrections....just protestations....not the same thing at all IMV.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, I can't get any rational meaning from this.

Every time she posts AI, UFO, radiation, male or gas, everyone has to take a drink.

 

[Deeje]

I don't really need your reply. Every time you make that same claim, you'll be inviting me to rebut it like this.

LOL, then why request a reply? Your rebuttals are like an angry parent correcting an errant child....I am not a child and you are not my parent. You have a belief system based on what you believe is the truth....but so do I. Lets see what comes of our respective positions, shall we?

Who's telling you which science is lies, and based on what distinction? What's the difference between the science you fight and the science that you are indifferent to? (rhetorical question, no answer needed)

It is the scientists themselves telling me that they can't prove a thing they say. I read all the links given to me with a different lens to you guys. I see what they write, but apparently you don't see, or choose to ignore what I see.
I don't think "might have" or "could have" when applied to a specific event in evolution is scientific terminology.....do you?

Here's another question I've asked you a dozen times, and reliably evade it every time. This one isn't rhetorical and does need an answer

"Are you proposing that we throw out a scientific theory that has unified mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately made predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for explaining the observable fact of evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture, and trade it in for a sterile idea like creationism that can do none of those things? Why would we? Why would you?"

I am not aware of you asking or I would have answered you.....as follows....

Who said anything about trading? I see the sciences as proof of what the Bible teaches....there are many branches of science, but all are attached to the same trunk....evolution. I see the sciences, and what they "know" (as opposed to what they "think" or "assume") to be completely compatible with the scriptures. I don't have to ditch science for God, or God for science, because I believe that science is the study of creation. They sit perfectly well together for me.

The guesswork of macro-evolution however, is just too vague for me.
When you hear that something "might have" happened, which caused something else to "perhaps" act in a certain way, then when does the speculation stop? When does the science fact become science fiction?

When evolution hit the scene, it was at a time when the population in general was getting a bit fed up with mainstream Christianity. New age thinking was introduced in a very small way at first, and people were intrigued with the idea that there was a new mode of thinking that could explain nature in such a way as to end up eliminating the need for a Creator, and therefore any need to abide by his rules. How tempting.

At first people like Darwin tried to marry the concepts of evolution with creation....but it didn't work. As the momentum grew so did the divide....it is still dividing people today...I believe, for a reason.

Rather than finding creation sterile...I find it completely engaging. I do not consider myself a "creationist" however....I do not subscribe to the YEC concept at all.

Actually, science does know how reptiles evolved from unicellular marine life.

Please inform us about this amazing event.....with hard facts to back up any assertions of course.

Creationists have no interest in or use for science except to try to use bits of it against itself. That's what I mean by enemies of science - no interest in it until they learn it contradicts their religion, then they learn a few words like adaptation and macroevolution, and hit the Internet to argue with people grounded in science.

We are no enemies of science at all...we love science when it relates to what can be discovered and proven...but when it comes to theories, the "evidence" itself is not at all 'overwhelming'....its the amount of empty, unproven claims that reach monumental proportions. Science buffs are so busy defending their 'religion' that they fail to see the difference between what is 'proven', and what is 'assumed'. The language they use gives it away with no outside interpretation required. They shoot themselves in the foot by admitting that they don't really know if what they believe really happened or not...they just assume that it did because they need it to. Then the jargon kicks in so that no lay person can ever argue with them.....or so they assume.

Where do you suppose those astronauts were for the several days between launch and splashdown? Some have suggested that they were just orbiting the earth. But the Soviets would have detected that and ratted America out rather than let it claim victory in the space race. Also, you've got about 4 million man years of scientists, technicians, engineers, mathematicians, administrators, etc.. that need to either believe that the crews were on the moon or keep the secret.

As I said...The holocaust was backed up by eye witnesses that I have known and personally talked to many years ago. They are long gone now, but the memory of what occurred will never go away.

I only have their word for the moon landing...I have no proof at all that it ever happened.

There is also the issue of the dish in Parkes NSW......which was used to track the Apollo 11 mission and transmit the pictures live from the moon. There was the lost transmission which was apparently easily explained, but which cast doubt in the minds of some, considering that we now know how ill equipped they were for such a mission, technologically back then. They wanted to beat the Russians to the moon, and by all accounts, they did....but I will reserve my judgment on whether it was carried out in a movie studio or not. It really doesn't matter to me. What good was accomplished by it anyway? To me it was just American 'oneupmanship'. Why has no one ever been back?

 

[PureX]

Science would describe how this just evolved with no intelligent direction at all.

This is not correct. Science only posses the mechanisms by which such a creature evolved. It cannot and does not address the question of "intelligence" within those mechanisms.

 

[gnostic]

Every time she posts AI, UFO, radiation, male or gas, everyone has to take a drink.

Make mine a single malt whisky, please.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet according to the theory of evolution.....everything did. The ancestor of us all found a way to produce "kinds" that completely outgrew their ancestry. Microscopic cells found a way to transform themselves into gigantic creatures, and medium sized creatures, and very tiny insects.....some of which live in very different environments. How clever of them to figure out how to do that with not a brain between them.

Put your money where your mouth is.
Name me a single species that supposedly outgrew its ancestral clade, and name that ancestor that it supposedly outgrew.

The law of monophy is called a law for a reason, you know....

These unicellular organisms that over a billion years evolved into gigantic creatures... Those were eukaryotes. Those gigantic creatures: also eukaryotes.

No change of clade happened.
I await your example of a species that supposedly changed clades. I'm not holding my breath though, because I like living.

Ring species eh?....what do we know about ring species...?

"In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which can interbreed with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series, which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between each "linked" population.[1] Such non-breeding, though genetically connected, "end" populations may co-exist in the same region (sympatry) thus closing a "ring"."

So where is the change in "kind" if all "species" remain within the same family? I think people confuse the term "species" to mean a new "kind" rather than a new "variety" of the same "kind". A "species" is not a new creature. Speciation is about variety within a "kind".

I was referring to your comment about how creatures of the same "kind" are those creatures that can interbreed. Ring species show that such a definition of "kind" is incoherent at worst and incomplete at best.

As for speciation, I'll refer you back to the law of monophy. Species can not outgrow their ancestry.
All descendents of canines will remain canines.
All descendents of eukaryotes, will remain eukaryotes.
All descendents of ape, will remain apes.
All descendents of mammals, will remain mammals.

Show me a single species that supposedly outgrew its ancestry / clade.
You can not. Because it doesn't exist. Because the law of monophy is a thing.

According to my 'textbook', the marine creatures and flying creatures came first, and the land dwellers followed.

"land dweller" is not a clade. Neither is "marine creature" or "flying creature" for that matter. Or would you say that bats and birds are the same "kind"? I know your bible lumps them together, but I'm sure (or hoping) that you know better and realise that bats, which are mammals, and birds aren't the same thing.
Try again.

They are two separate creations with two completely different environments to call home.
What about the amphibians? Since they are air breathers, they can exist quite happily in both environments as they were designed to do. Look at how many mammals make their home in the water....some come out of the water to breed, other stay in the oceans. I see no evolutionary relationships because there is none unless you want to imply such. I have no need to imply that.

You are doing your very best to avoid answering the question that you were asked.
I'll just repeat the question:

Whales and the 4-legged creature they evolved from, were both vertebrate chordate mammals. Where was the "change in kind" exactty?

If your answer is "I'm not seeing it", then you're just engaging in an argument from incredulity: "my evidence against this, is that I don't believe it".

To me creation explains all the things science is still uncertain about.

So, a classic case god-of-the-gaps then...........................

The Bible is a simple explanation of a complex event. I love the simplicity.

As long as there is no need to think things through and to study to gain actual understanding, it's easy off course. Yes, it's much easier to simply say "god dun it" instead of actually doing to work to learn how reality really works. No argument there.

But I'm sure you agree that intellectual laziness has no place in scientific inquiry.

And I don't need a science degree to dazzle people with incomprehensible nonsense.

Not having a basic science base will make sure that you are dazzled by anything scientific that is more complex then "god dun it", that's for sure.

But again, intellectual laziness, is not an argument.

So you are basically saying that the law of monophy argues with evolution

The law of monophy is a law OF evolution.

, which teaches that all life came from a single cell that just magically appeared one day with all the necessary equipment to transform itself into all the lifeforms that have ever existed? So which is it...?

No. First, evolution says nothing about magic. Second, evolution says nothing about the origins of life.
Third, the law of monophy argues with your strawman of evolution. Not with the actual theory of evolution.

LOL, I think you are basically arguing with yourself....since fertility is vital for life to be transmitted, then monophy confirms that fertility is limited to those who are attracted to one another genetically, via signals that they are designed to respond to....dancing or courtship rituals, pheromones, or just opportunity. They have to be of the same species to do that, but even if the different species cannot interbreed, it does not remove them from their original 'family' or place them into a new one.

I'm not arguing with myself. You are simply not comprehending what is being said.

You seem to forget that many of these graphs are used to teach students who are at the mercy of science.

Which would include the graph concerning relative sizes.
What is the problem?

They have no option but to learn evolution in school

They also have no option but to learn plate tectonics, germ theory, atomic theory, etc.
What is the problem?

, which is carried over into university and its all a foregone conclusion in their minds by the time they get there....so, yes I do believe it is designed to give a false impression.

Your beliefs are irrelevant to the facts.

Ask any science student if they believe in evolution and you will invariably get a positive YES

Obviously. I bet they also believe in germs and atoms.

....but ask them to furnish proof that evolution took place by presenting concrete evidence, and they can't do it.

You really believe that students of biology aren't able to present evidence for evolution?
On which planet do you live?

Why? Because they are indoctrinated before they get into their tertiary studies, which simply reinforces all that they have already been convinced is the truth. They are not taught to question.....or the ridicule will follow.

Just like ridicule follows when you deny germs or atoms or plate tectonics or heliocentrism.
Rightfully so, I might add, assuming they went to a proper school and weren't instead brainwashed by YECs homeschooling them.

Oh those elusive "common ancestors"...can you find them all for me?

No. Just like you can't find all your ancestors of even only the past 400 years.

Even a few would do, but you have to prove that they are related, not just presenting with "similarities"....like an ear bone.

The law of monophy explains why the ear bone of whales is significant.
Off course, being willfully ignorant about it won't help you in understanding that.

If an ear bone can make a whale out of a small dog-like creature, then there is a magician in your midst.

No, you are the one who believes in magic.
There is no magic in "reproduce passing on mutated genes, mutate, survive, repeat."

And here is the name calling.....

Calling out displays of ignorance, is not name-calling.
It's just stating observation.

When a person tries to argue about a theory and shows to not even be aware of the core pinciples and laws of that theory, then it's very much factual to state that said person is ignorant of that theory.

To be called ignorant on a subject is not an insult.
I'm ignorant of a great many things. As are you. As are we all.

it always ends like this.....no substance that provides concrete evidence, just vague suggestions and "might haves" or "could haves"....I can use those descriptors too.

I have told you what your mistakes were. I have explained to you how your understanding of evolution is wrong. I have explained to you that you argue strawmen.

What more substance do you require?

"Corrected"?....funny I have seen no corrections....just protestations....not the same thing at all IMV.

See? You don't care. I've brought the law of monophy to your attention. A law of which I'm pretty positive that you never heared about before. I brought this to your attention to expose a core basic mistake / misunderstanding in your idea of how evolution works. A law OF evolution.

Your response? Instead of actually correcting your strawman misrepresentation of evolution, you start arguing that this law then argues against evolution instead. Well, it argues against your strawman version of evolution. Not against actual evolution.

But you aren't interested in actual evolution.
You are only interested in promoting your religious creationist belief and categorically refuse to rectify your mistakes concerning mainstream biology.

O well..............

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, I paid attention to the fact that none of the building blocks are alive.

Well, being building blocks and not actually living things, that seems like a pointlessly redundant comment.

And no matter how you construct them, life would not result

That's what they used to say about the building blocks themselves. "amino acids are way to complex!".

We get back to what "life" is and how it began....."life comes from pre-existing life"....when has science ever found that to be untrue? Only in their pet theory.

Which theory would that be? Certainly not evolution, as it doesn't address that topic at all.

You have a computer inside your head...how is it a false equivocation? Can a computer make its own components and assemble them in the correct sequence and then program itself to perform complex and interrelated functions without an intelligent programmer? When has science ever found that to be true? Only in their pet theory.

It's a false equivocation because computers aren't based in organic chemistry, nore are their components naturally occuring.

What does natural selection accomplish?

It makes the evolution of species non-random and anything but an 'accident'.
Instead, it literally optimizes species to maximally thrive in the environment they find themselves in.

This is why the principles of evolution (mutation + selection) are used in genetic algorithms as a search heuristic and as optimization modules.

It keeps the "kinds" separated so that creatures remain in their families.

No, that's not because of natural selection. That rather is because of how reproduction and the passing on of genetic material to off spring works. You know... the law of monophy.

Even without any kind of selection process (let's assume that wouldn't result in extinction), the law of monophy would still apply. You will never give birth to your cousin if you get naturally pregnant. That kid will always be your son / daughter. And it will always be a modified version of you and the father.

Adaptation can take a creature and make modifications in that creature to adapt to a new environment or food source but it can never take a creature and turn it into something else

Yes. The law of monophy.

When has science ever observed that?

Never.

Only according to their pet theory.

Err, no. As I have brought to your attention multiple times now... if such a thing would happen, it would be a violation of the law of monophy. Which would falsify evolution. Actual evolution, that is. Not the strawman version you insist on argueing against, for some reason.

LOL....I'm not talking about a "Creator of first life"....that would suit the fence sitters very well.....I am talking about the Creator of ALL life.

ALL life, ey?

You are a woman, aren't you?
Ever given birth to someone? Do you think babies pop into existance through magic or by storks?
Clearly it wouldn't be "ALL life".

If the Creator was to make his existence manifest, and it became clear that his version of events was true, then who do you think will be first on his hit list for misleading others to disbelieve him?

Himself?
If no evolution ever occured, and he created all species, then he did it in such a way to deceive everyone into thinking that it all evolved instead, by planting all the evidence in such a way that that is what it looked like.

....to disrespect his genius and to treat him as of no account in connection with his own creation?

It would be his own fault, for planting all the evidence and creating everything in such a way that everything looks EXACTLY as how it would look if it all evolved from a common ancestor.

I assure you that most living things need two 'parents'.

I assure you that that is not true.
Most species reproduce asexually.

You should really study up.

I love it when people give me links......here is an interesting paragraph....

"Although understanding the astounding diversity and abundance of multicellular life is the focus of much biological research, the foundational basis for multicellular diversity (its origin from unicellular ancestors) remains obscure. Direct experimentation (in contrast to comparative or theoretical approaches) would be ideal to determine the causative factors in the origins of multicellularity. Such experiments would identify the environmental conditions promoting multicellularity and the genetic changes involved. The importance of selection, drift, mutation, and sex could be determined, as could the repeatability of specific evolutionary changes. Focusing on the first steps would avoid the obscuring complexity of subsequent evolution. Unfortunately, opportunities for such direct experimentation are limited. Although multicellularity has evolved repeatedly in different eukaryotic lineages (Grosberg and Strathmann 2007), the most recent of these transitions, in brown (Brown and Sorhannus 2010) and volvocine algae (Herron et al. 2009), occurred approximately 200 million years ago, which makes direct investigation of their origins impossible. Moreover, prior work suggests that the crucial early steps may have taken millions of years (e.g., Herron et al. 2009)."

IOW.....they have no way to go back and test their theories about early cellular life....and unless you think we are related to yeast, what is the point?

The point is that instances of unicelullar to multi-cellular development has been observed in the lab.
You might have missed it while you were busy searching for things that you feel like you can use to make your unsupported case again while ignoring the elephant in the room, hoping nobody would notice.

Please don't tell me that you think we are related to bananas as well....

Off course we are.
We are both multi-cellular eukaryotes.

Ah yes...monophy.....you seem a little obsessed with this word as if it somehow explains anything....

Well, it directly addresses a crucial piece of intel that is missing from your understanding of evolution theory. If you keep on ignoring it, all you will accomplish is that you will continue to argue a strawman.
And I will have to keep on coming back to it.

It's not so much that I'm "obsessed" with it. It's more a case of you insisting on getting it wrong, which in turn makes it necessary to keep coming back to it..........

It simply explains why the finches will always be finches, which is what Darwin observed.

And why canines remains canines.
And why primates remain primates.
And why dino's remain dino's.
And why mammals remain mammals.
And why chordates remain chordates.
And why vertebrates remain vertebrates.
And why eukaryotes remain eukaryots.

Or, to put it in more generic terms: why descendants of a clade will always remain in that clade. Or in even other words: why species never outgrow their ancestry. Or to put it in YOUR terms: why "kinds" never evolve into different "kinds".

All his finches were simply different varieties of the one "kind" of bird

All newborns of any species are always simply a modified version (or a "variety") of their ancestors.
This is true for finches, for whales, for humans, for dogs, for hippo's .. or any other species.

And no matter how much time elapsed, Darwin would not have seen those finches transform into some other "kind" of bird

Indeed. As the law of monophy dictates.
Any other result would falsify evolution. Actual evolution, that is. Not the strawman version you argue against.

Regardless of whether they could interbreed or not, it didn't change their breed. So where did the original finches come from?

Ancestral birds.

What were the ancestors of all the bird species if they can only breed with their own "kind"?

Ancestral birds of the same clade.
I'm not a paleontologist though and I'm not going to pretend to know the evolutionary history of every single species.

If you're really interested, I'm sure you can look it up. But you won't off course. Because you're not actually interested. You're only interested in arguing strawmen, as you prove with every single post you make on this topic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are assuming that what we call "theory" is real DESPITE the fact it isn't based on experiment.

I am assuming that any idea that permits us to predict outcomes better than any competing idea is tentatively a keeper. Real and experiment don't enter into that.

You are assuming that we haven't divorced ourselves from empirical evidence

Are you religious? Are you willing to believe by faith absent sufficient evidentiary justification? If so, then yes. You haveno need for physical evidence, or any other kind.

We are rushing headlong into a dark ages and people can't see it because we are told science is infallible and opinion of experts is unassailable.

The anti-sciencers are leading man into the abyss.

Just kidding - this round of bleach is on me.

We have been killing ourselves for 150 year and it accelerates every passing day.

Conservatives and Christians are the motive force there:

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan

science doesn't come from a lab as often any longer as it comes from consensus or vote. So long as the experts agree they don't need no stinkin' experiment.

That's incorrect, and wouldn't describe science if it were correct.

."life comes from pre-existing life"....when has science ever found that to be untrue?

That's irrelevant. When has science or anybody else ever shown that life couldn't evolve from nonliving chemicals? None have.

So where is the change in "kind" if all "species" remain within the same family? I think people confuse the term "species" to mean a new "kind" rather than a new "variety" of the same "kind". A "species" is not a new creature. Speciation is about variety within a "kind".

Kind is a meaningless word in science, because it has no clear, stable definition. If you want to discuss science, use its language. If you want to inject vague religious concepts, go talk to a priest. He'll understand. I don't.

According to my 'textbook', the marine creatures and flying creatures came first, and the land dwellers followed.

Flying creatures came after terrestrial creatures? What were they flying in, the ocean?

To me creation explains all the things science is still uncertain about.

Creationism explains nothing. There is no mechanism. Saying "God did it" means as little as saying "Norman did it." Who? How? Where's you're promised explanation?

The Bible is a simple explanation of a complex event. I love the simplicity.

I need more.

evolution, which teaches that all life came from a single cell

Nope. The theory teaches that all life came from a single primeval unicellular population.

If only you had studied this first before coming here.

Ask any science student if they believe in evolution and you will invariably get a positive YES....but ask them to furnish proof that evolution took place by presenting concrete evidence, and they can't do it.

The theory is correct. Discovering that is your own responsibility.

Your rebuttals are like an angry parent correcting an errant child.

Your posts are infantile.

It is the scientists themselves telling me that they can't prove a thing they say.

You're hearing things.

you don't see, or choose to ignore what I see

My standards for determining what is true about the universe are different from yours. We see different realities.

I see the sciences as proof of what the Bible teaches.

I see science as proof that the Bible teaches falsehood. Good example of the (immediately) above.

When you hear that something "might have" happened, which caused something else to "perhaps" act in a certain way, then when does the speculation stop? When does the science fact become science fiction?

Why should speculation ever stop. "Maybe" is an intelligent question.

The guesswork of macro-evolution however, is just too vague for me.

Science isn't for everybody. One needs a foundation in it to even begin to understand it.

I only have their word for the moon landing...I have no proof at all that it ever happened.

You're a Christian. You don't need even a reason to believe, much less proof. You just need the desire.

 

[cladking]

Real and experiment don't enter into that.

The ability to predict is the reason any science has ever been invented. Most Look and see Science doesn't make prediction but explains observation; it predicts what has already happened. It is usually worthless for predicting the future.

Look and See Science is dangerous because it promotes superstition but it's far more dangerous in a world with thousands of specialties and very little overlap between them. It's increasingly difficult to have an informed opinion about any specialty and reality always involves every specialty (and less human understanding).

 

[Dan From Smithville]

LOL, then why request a reply? Your rebuttals are like an angry parent correcting an errant child....I am not a child and you are not my parent. You have a belief system based on what you believe is the truth....but so do I. Lets see what comes of our respective positions, shall we?



It is the scientists themselves telling me that they can't prove a thing they say. I read all the links given to me with a different lens to you guys. I see what they write, but apparently you don't see, or choose to ignore what I see.
I don't think "might have" or "could have" when applied to a specific event in evolution is scientific terminology.....do you?



I am not aware of you asking or I would have answered you.....as follows....

Who said anything about trading? I see the sciences as proof of what the Bible teaches....there are many branches of science, but all are attached to the same trunk....evolution. I see the sciences, and what they "know" (as opposed to what they "think" or "assume") to be completely compatible with the scriptures. I don't have to ditch science for God, or God for science, because I believe that science is the study of creation. They sit perfectly well together for me.

The guesswork of macro-evolution however, is just too vague for me.
When you hear that something "might have" happened, which caused something else to "perhaps" act in a certain way, then when does the speculation stop? When does the science fact become science fiction?

When evolution hit the scene, it was at a time when the population in general was getting a bit fed up with mainstream Christianity. New age thinking was introduced in a very small way at first, and people were intrigued with the idea that there was a new mode of thinking that could explain nature in such a way as to end up eliminating the need for a Creator, and therefore any need to abide by his rules. How tempting.

At first people like Darwin tried to marry the concepts of evolution with creation....but it didn't work. As the momentum grew so did the divide....it is still dividing people today...I believe, for a reason.

Rather than finding creation sterile...I find it completely engaging. I do not consider myself a "creationist" however....I do not subscribe to the YEC concept at all.



Please inform us about this amazing event.....with hard facts to back up any assertions of course.



We are no enemies of science at all...we love science when it relates to what can be discovered and proven...but when it comes to theories, the "evidence" itself is not at all 'overwhelming'....its the amount of empty, unproven claims that reach monumental proportions. Science buffs are so busy defending their 'religion' that they fail to see the difference between what is 'proven', and what is 'assumed'. The language they use gives it away with no outside interpretation required. They shoot themselves in the foot by admitting that they don't really know if what they believe really happened or not...they just assume that it did because they need it to. Then the jargon kicks in so that no lay person can ever argue with them.....or so they assume.



As I said...The holocaust was backed up by eye witnesses that I have known and personally talked to many years ago. They are long gone now, but the memory of what occurred will never go away.

I only have their word for the moon landing...I have no proof at all that it ever happened.

There is also the issue of the dish in Parkes NSW......which was used to track the Apollo 11 mission and transmit the pictures live from the moon. There was the lost transmission which was apparently easily explained, but which cast doubt in the minds of some, considering that we now know how ill equipped they were for such a mission, technologically back then. They wanted to beat the Russians to the moon, and by all accounts, they did....but I will reserve my judgment on whether it was carried out in a movie studio or not. It really doesn't matter to me. What good was accomplished by it anyway? To me it was just American 'oneupmanship'. Why has no one ever been back?

Interesting that you should consider yourself the errant child in this scenario. Even you recognize your position on science.

 

[Deeje]

The ability to predict is the reason any science has ever been invented. Most Look and see Science doesn't make prediction but explains observation; it predicts what has already happened. It is usually worthless for predicting the future.

Look and See Science is dangerous because it promotes superstition but it's far more dangerous in a world with thousands of specialties and very little overlap between them. It's increasingly difficult to have an informed opinion about any specialty and reality always involves every specialty (and less human understanding).

Yep...couldn't agree more. Evolutionary science has become what it condemns.....a 'belief system' based on "I think this "might have" happened because it is suggested by my pet theory, and allows me to delete an Intelligent Creator confidently from any conversation".

You can see by the length of the replies how determined they are to diminish ANYTHING that will put their beloved theory into question. That's not science...that is a religion. They are desperately trying to uphold a theory with so many holes that cannot be filled with anything but supposition.....but trying to pretend that evolution is a fact.....IMO, the real fact is...there are no real facts....just conjecture and assumptions backed up with faith in their own belief system.

 

[Deeje]

This is not correct. Science only posses the mechanisms by which such a creature evolved. It cannot and does not address the question of "intelligence" within those mechanisms.

But its the elephant in the room....