Does evolution have a purpose?

[Valjean]

See I was going to leave out viruses and bacteria because I thought (wrongly) that we were past that point. Evolution from bacteria to anything but bacteria just isn't there but if you know the transformation process in actuality to another item more ? than bacteria, please let me know. Please do not give me conjecture. Clearly bacteria change from type to type, but they stay bacteria. Maybe you can show me where that is wrong. If so, I will change my thought here.

Several of us have already posted links, but you ignore them. Should we do the same thing again? Would we get a different result?

 

[YoursTrue]

Several of us have already posted links, but you ignore them. Should we do the same thing again? Would we get a different result?

Ok, please post a link showing, not conjecturing, that bacteria evolve into something more than bacteria. Please note I'm not talking that one variant turns into a slightly different bacteria.
https://news.arizona.edu/story/bacteria-take-short-cuts-evolve-fast-track
From what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, these items that change continue as bacteria.. They're still bacteria, no matter how they change.

 

[Mock Turtle]

At the beginning, before Adam and Eve had children, they rejected God's leadership, Eve thinking she didn't need God to tell her what to do. So He let her to make her own decisions as to what was good or bad for her. Except she had to cope with her husband who also discarded God's rulership in his life. I can only imagine she didn't eat poison mushrooms but died of old age, as the saying goes. A "natural" death. Nothing is said about the exact cause except that it was ensured by her creator that she would die as a result of her disobedience in that respect. More suffering was involved, but she lived for a much longer time than we do today.

Yeah, I suspect the autopsies weren't so thorough in those days, given they hardly knew which part did what.

 

[ratiocinator]

It's not just only a theory. It's simply not proven except as a matter of conjectural assertions.

No theory is proven but there is copious evidence (saying it's conjecture and assertions is simple false), some of which (genetic evidence) I have given to you directly and all you could do in answer was to totally ignore it or make bland denials that had nothing to do with it at all. And if you say something like "genetic similarities don't prove evolution", then it will just tell us, yet again, that you can't cope with addressing the actual evidence.

And using the phrase "only a theory" still indicates scientific illiteracy.

 

[Valjean]

Ok, please post a link showing, not conjecturing, that bacteria evolve into something more than bacteria. Please note I'm not talking that one variant turns into a slightly different bacteria.
https://news.arizona.edu/story/bacteria-take-short-cuts-evolve-fast-track
From what I read, and correct me if I'm wrong, these items that change continue as bacteria.. They're still bacteria, no matter how they change.

Small changes accumulate.

Biological change is usually too slow for us to notice significant changes in our short threescore-and-ten.
How great a change must an organism undergo before you'd acknowledge it as a new organism.?

What's your take on ring species, or the fossil sequence of changes accumulating into entirely different species? How about the gradual anatomical or genetic sequences?

Do you believe Spanish evolved from Latin? Has anyone ever observed one language turning into another one? Have parents ever given birth to children who speak a different language?

 

[YoursTrue]

Several of us have already posted links, but you ignore them. Should we do the same thing again? Would we get a different result?

In other words, you can't explain. You. Not someone else.

 

[YoursTrue]

No theory is proven but there is copious evidence (saying it's conjecture and assertions is simple false), some of which (genetic evidence) I have given to you directly and all you could do in answer was to totally ignore it or make bland denials that had nothing to do with it at all. And if you say something like "genetic similarities don't prove evolution", then it will just tell us, yet again, that you can't cope with addressing the actual evidence.

And using the phrase "only a theory" still indicates scientific illiteracy.

Not in the sense of evolution. It's your word against no proof. There are no experiments demonstrating evolution. It's all conjecture. So let's see what you say. Or surmise. Did a particle land on the earth to start the process? What say you and your accepted scientists?

 

[YoursTrue]

Small changes accumulate.

Biological change is usually too slow for us to notice significant changes in our short threescore-and-ten.
How great a change must an organism undergo before you'd acknowledge it as a new organism.?

What's your take on ring species, or the fossil sequence of changes accumulating into entirely different species? How about the gradual anatomical or genetic sequences?

Do you believe Spanish evolved from Latin? Has anyone ever observed one language turning into another one? Have parents ever given birth to children who speak a different language?

Has anyone given birth to a child coming out of the womb and immediately starting to talk? Ya think that means evolution? Lol...getting funnier. You think growing older means evolution? Is death part of evolution? In other words...you got your ways and best to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not in the sense of evolution. It's your word against no proof. There are no experiments demonstrating evolution. It's all conjecture. So let's see what you say. Or surmise. Did a particle land on the earth to start the process? What say you and your accepted scientists?

It is not conjecture. There are experiments that demonstrate evolution. Ignoring and denying them will not make them go away.

You repeat all your claims like a mantra or an incantation that will magically convert the world to be how YOU want it to be seen. It is not working.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Has anyone given birth to a child coming out of the womb and immediately starting to talk? Ya think that means evolution? Lol...getting funnier. You think growing older means evolution? Is death part of evolution? In other words...you got your ways and best to you.

Magical events are not predicted by the theory of evolution. A magical talking newborn would not be evidence supporting the theory of evolution. It would be evidence against the theory.

Is rejecting ideas without any attempt to understand them learning? Is it honesty? Is it what God wants us to do?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In other words, you can't explain. You. Not someone else.

In other words, you refuse to review evidence and try to understand it.

 

[YoursTrue]

No theory is proven but there is copious evidence (saying it's conjecture and assertions is simple false), some of which (genetic evidence) I have given to you directly and all you could do in answer was to totally ignore it or make bland denials that had nothing to do with it at all. And if you say something like "genetic similarities don't prove evolution", then it will just tell us, yet again, that you can't cope with addressing the actual evidence.

And using the phrase "only a theory" still indicates scientific illiteracy.

Yes, it is only a theory. Especially that it's not true. There's evidence that gravity exists. Humans (#1) do not have wings, and if a person were to jump off a building, he'd fall, not float or go upwards on his own. That's evidence. And it's proof that gravity exists, as Newton said, gravity is happenstance. Now it is also true that 'laws' such as gravitational forces can be overturned by a force greater than a current gravitational force. And that without going into space. Realizing you probably don't believe that, I see no reason though why that is not true.
The evidence for the theory of evolution is presented without any reality. It's all based on looks. And some similar genes here and there. And scientific posturing as if to augment the basis of the theory. A branch here and a branch there, conjectured. Molecules here and there. That is NOT true evidence of the theory. If I believed it, I would present the logic as you do or don't. I believed what they taught me in school. Not being a science major, I really didn't question it. Now I do. The questions are multitudinous. And really, as you say, there is no proof.
But if you think it is true, with or without experiments that prove the theory, that's what you and many others think. It does not make it true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, it is only a theory. There's evidence that gravity exists. Humans (#1) do not have wings, and if a person were to jump off a building, he'd fall, not float. That's evidence. And proof that gravity exists, as Newton said, gravity is happenstance. Evolution is not. Now it is also true that 'laws' such as gravitational forces can be overturned by a force greater than the gravitational force. And that without going into space. Realizing you probably don't believe that, I see no reason why that is not true.
The evidence for the theory of evolution is presented without any reality. It's all based on looks. And some similar genes here and there. And similar components of objects. (So what?) A branch here and a branch there, conjectured. That is NOT true evidence of the theory. If I believed it, I would present the logic as you do or don't. Even though the questions are multitudinous. And really, as you say, with no proof.
But if you think it is, that's what you and many others think. It does not make it true.

Okay when it comes to the sciences anyone that says "It is only a theory" has already lost. They have disqualified themselves form making any meaningful statements since a theory is as good as it gets in the sciences. Though there is no formal ranking a theory outranks a law. Laws have been replaced by theories but I do not know of any theory that was replaced by a law.

Second there is more evidence for the theory of evolution than there is for the theory of gravity (spoiler alert, gravity is an example of a law being superseded by a theory). You have essentially confirmed evolution as a fact again.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not in the sense of evolution.

No, saying "only a theory" in the context of science, is scientifically illiterate regardless. If you wanted to claim there was no evidence, and you had any clue at all, you might say something like "it's only a conjecture", "only a theory" gives you away immediately as being ignorant of basic science.

It's your word against no proof.

Talking about proof shows equal ignorance of basic science.

There are no experiments demonstrating evolution. It's all conjecture.

Two blatant falsehoods.

So let's see what you say. Or surmise. Did a particle land on the earth to start the process? What say you and your accepted scientists?

Now you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis. Hilarious! You really couldn't make this stuff up if you wanted to create a comedy creationist! Save yourself some typing next time and just put "I know nothing about science and evolution".

 

[ratiocinator]

The evidence for the theory of evolution is presented without any reality. It's all based on looks.

This is false - as you would know if you'd actually looked at the evidence.

And some similar genes here and there.

This is a completely false representation of the genetic evidence. I have given you multiple references that explain why the pattern of genes, pseudo genes, and the statistics of the differences between species are consistent with evolution and next to impossible to explain by 'common design' (unless the designer set out to deceive us). Other people have done the same with different references. You just ignored all of it, repeated the same bland denials, and ignored all my follow up questions about how you would explain the patterns seen.

Do you want another go?

Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
Genesis and the Genome (pdf)
Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles

 

[Valjean]

In other words, you can't explain. You. Not someone else.

Does it matter where an explanation comes from?
The facts are plain. You refuse to accept them. I don't think you even read them. I don't think you want to understand them, lest they upset your familiar world-view.

Not in the sense of evolution. It's your word against no proof. There are no experiments demonstrating evolution. It's all conjecture. So let's see what you say. Or surmise. Did a particle land on the earth to start the process? What say you and your accepted scientists?

Stop claiming no evidence when you refuse to look at the evidence. It's you whose world-view is unevidenced, and that idea apparently so disconcerts you that you choose to hide your head in the sand.

 

[Valjean]

Has anyone given birth to a child coming out of the womb and immediately starting to talk? Ya think that means evolution? Lol...getting funnier. You think growing older means evolution? Is death part of evolution? In other words...you got your ways and best to you.

Where do you come up with these bizarre, irrelevant, non-examples?
What is it you think (feel) I'm saying? You're clearly missing the whole argument.

 

[Valjean]

Yes, it is only a theory. Especially that it's not true. There's evidence that gravity exists. Humans (#1) do not have wings, and if a person were to jump off a building, he'd fall, not float or go upwards on his own. That's evidence. And it's proof that gravity exists, as Newton said, gravity is happenstance. Now it is also true that 'laws' such as gravitational forces can be overturned by a force greater than a current gravitational force. And that without going into space. Realizing you probably don't believe that, I see no reason though why that is not true.
The evidence for the theory of evolution is presented without any reality. It's all based on looks. And some similar genes here and there. And scientific posturing as if to augment the basis of the theory. A branch here and a branch there, conjectured. Molecules here and there. That is NOT true evidence of the theory. If I believed it, I would present the logic as you do or don't. I believed what they taught me in school. Not being a science major, I really didn't question it. Now I do. The questions are multitudinous. And really, as you say, there is no proof.
But if you think it is true, with or without experiments that prove the theory, that's what you and many others think. It does not make it true.

Do you know what a straw man is? How many times have we explained to you what a scientific theory is? How many times have we corrected you on this very point?

YT, you're blabbering uninformed nonsense; claims so ridiculous it's hard to believe you're actually serious and not trolling.
"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

 

[KWED]

Does evolution have a purpose?
-If yes what is it?
-If no, why not?

No.
Evolution is a blind process. There is no "end goal" or fixed direction. It is simply the means by which species adapt to environmental pressure through random mutation.

"Purpose" itself does not really exist in nature. It is a man-made concept we invented to help make sense of a bewildering world.

 

[KWED]

Yet it changes the species before the environment changes.
So is that chance or luck for said species?

Evolution is not a response to a changing environment.
It is the process by which a species can become better suited to some particular feature of an environment.