Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

So humans are the last and latest in the current species of humans, the other human species are now reportedly extinct. Would you agree with that?

No, just no. Surmising is your sin. That can be shown. You cannot show that scientists surmise.

Tell me, as a Christian, doesn't the Ninth Commandment mean anything at all to you?

 

[YoursTrue]

.

Came across this little gem a bit ago and thought I'd share.

View attachment 32918

​

Thoughts?

. ​

May I ask where you got that chart about the theory of evolution? It's so small I can't read it, and I'd really like to see it. Thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wow! So many errors in such a short post.

Tell me was there a first "Spanish speaker"?

Second, "microevolution" is pretty much a dead term. There is only evolution. Besides that we have directly observed macroevolution, but you do not even know what micro and macro evolution are. You cannot refute an idea that you do not like with ignorance.

From macroevolution is surmised microevolution. Are you saying that is no longer part of the theory? (Besides, a dinosaur with feathers is not showing micro OR macro evolution. It is showing that there was a body that looked like a dinosaur that had feathers on it. How many of those were found, by the way? And while we're on it, how many fossils of the common supposed ancestor of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans have been found?)

 

[YoursTrue]

No, just no. Surmising is your sin. That can be shown. You cannot show that scientists surmise.

Tell me, as a Christian, doesn't the Ninth Commandment mean anything at all to you?

LOL, it obviously means nothing to those that surmise about fossils having evolved through micro or macro, coming up from bacteria surmised from the ocean or maybe outer space to the greater ape population. It's mostly a guessing game.
P.S. You're the one that got sooo upset about the word surmise vs. guess. So now are you saying that scientists don't surmise? It certainly seems that way. My, but you can't even face the obvious. Sad.
And yes, I was thinking that if a lawyer presented happenings in the form of evidence but there were no eyewitnesses that could be trusted, I would not make a guess or surmise about what happened. And thank you for your comment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL, it obviously means nothing to those that surmise about fossils having evolved through micro or macro, coming up from bacteria surmised from the ocean or maybe outer space to the greater ape population. It's mostly a guessing game.

Wow! Once again you break the Ninth Commandment and at the same time demonstrate that you do not understand it.

Why do creationists have such an incredibly hard time being honest?

When you make the claim of "surmise" that puts the burden of proof upon you. If you can't support your claims, and your inability to understand is not support, then it looks as if you bore false witness against others.

You seem to have also have made the mistake of thinking that the Ninth Commandment is a ban on lying. It is not. Read it again. Think about it. Tell me if you can see your error.

EDIT: And what you are complaining about is neither surmising or guessing. You seem to know it. When You are asked to support that false claim you run away. Can't you understand that when you make bear witness about others that you need to be able to support it. Believing it is not good enough. You may believe that you are telling the truth, but if you can't support it you probably are not. That means even if you did not intend to lie that you bore false witness against your neighbor.

 

[Skwim]

May I ask where you got that chart about the theory of evolution? It's so small I can't read it, and I'd really like to see it. Thank you.

There are several versions HERE, but none appear any more readable than the one I posted,

.

 

[Valjean]

And how do we know this?

Fossils.

With all due respect, this simply does not make any sense. If there is that much trial and error and it takes millions of years for something to evolve then, we would have never made this far. Take the human for example, after all the trial and error lets say something magically evolved in to a human. Did this thing or these things magically know to become male and female? And let's imagine the answer is yes, then if there was so much trial and error to get the 9 months correct then the first 2 humans died. How were they replaced? Trial and error simply makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense, and you apparently understand neither the process nor the evidence.
It doesn't necessarily take millions of years for something to evolve. Rate of change depends on different factors. It can be "relatively" fast in some circumstances.
There's no magic to evolution. It's a natural series of steps involving observable and understood processes.
Sexual reproduction is an old process. It predates even life on land. It arose by natural means. It was selected for because it's so useful in promoting variation -- an important factor in the survival of organisms with long generation times.
Nine months isn't "correct," it's just the usual human gestation time. There were no first two humans, You're operating from a mythological framework that cannot be reconciled with fact based science.

Why ask questions about evolution if you already hold a world view that completely precludes the possibility; a world view impermeable to the answers you know you'll receive? Such questions would be fraudulent.
Would any answer; any evidence shake your preconceptions? Is your world-view cast in stone?
If so, why are you here?

Any evidence to this? or just blind assumption?

Ten was the prototype, half a billion years ago. There was no selective pressure to alter it. It was 'good enough'.

I do not completely agree with statement however, its too off topic to get in to. With that said, at least the very basics of gravity can be explained and understood by anyone unlike, the theory of evolution

ROFL! The physics of gravity is a great deal more complicated -- and counter-intuitive -- than the ToE. The ToE is commonsense, it requires no abstruse laws of physics. It's readily observable.

 

[Valjean]

Sorry, allow me to rephrase.

You said :New variations of existing "forms" arise.

My question, have we seen rise to any new variations or forms to existing forms, specifically humans?

Not humans, though there have been recent extinctions of previous 'forms'. But there are other, recent examples:
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
Observed Instances of Speciation (Scroll to 5.0)

 

[Valjean]

Again, i completely agree however, the whole "survival of the fittest" actually contradicts our entire life and a species as a whole. Which is why i do not think it fits with the theory of evolution, actually it contradicts it

How so?

 

[Valjean]

So humans are the last and latest in the current species of humans, the other human species are now reportedly extinct. Would you agree with that?

You know the answer to this.
Were you home schooled?

 

[Valjean]

From macroevolution is surmised microevolution. Are you saying that is no longer part of the theory? (Besides, a dinosaur with feathers is not showing micro OR macro evolution. It is showing that there was a body that looked like a dinosaur that had feathers on it. How many of those were found, by the way? And while we're on it, how many fossils of the common supposed ancestor of chimpanzees, bonobos and humans have been found?)

Backwards.
From repeated microevolution comes macroevolution. They are the same. Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution. French is just an accumulation of microchanges from Latin.

 

[Valjean]

Completely and 100% doubt that.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/human-flaws-demonstrate-evolution-not-intelligent-design/
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-most-unfortunate-design-flaws-in-the-human-body-1518242787

On the contrary, its because i have grasped the basics i ask these questions.

I'm skeptical.

I was not comparing it to relgion

What alternative do you propose?

If you don't think or question them, then, maybe. However, as soon as you start questioning you find out how much it lacks commonsense. There seem to be too many assumptions in the theory of evolution.

it is commonsense, and evidence based.[/QUOTE]

 

[YoursTrue]

Backwards.
From repeated microevolution comes macroevolution. They are the same. Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution. French is just an accumulation of microchanges from Latin.

I figured that you might figure that language development, from one language to another, is a form of evolution. I suppose you surmise as well that genes connected with language development also changed with the change of language? The development of language is certainly interesting. I am not surprised you believe that is like biologic evolution, as if from one biological form to another.
The problem with "micro evolution" is that there is no fossil evidence of such, is there? While I think there is not, perhaps you can offer more than say-so that there is fossil evidence of micro evolution and show me that I'm wrong. Thanks. And I really do appreciate the answers to help along.

 

[YoursTrue]

I don't see why you think that one species of animals sometimes prays to a made up being to be significant.

Similarly, I suppose you don't think that language development among homo sapiens is significant either. I understand. You just don't want to accept the obvious. Since you keep talking about honesty, why don't you be honest about what is obvious? Such as -- humans being the only ones alive that talk about God, who pray, who invent machines to help keep them alive, as well as spaceships. Why don't you at least admit the obvious as being significant in their difference from other forms of life, including the greater ape relations? And really, if you don't think these difference are signifcant, I'll let you ruminate a while on these things.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no problem with humans are the only animals that can write.

But humans are animals too. ...

Are there any proofs of micro or macro evolutionary changes to show why and how humans can read, write, talk about God and death, invent machines to delay death, and transmitting their ideas to other humans, while animals do not do these things?

 

[gnostic]

Are there any proofs of micro or macro evolutionary changes to show why and how humans can read, write

And you still don’t bloody understand, that reading and writing are “learned skills”, not biology, and therefore not inheritable evolutionary traits.

Learning to read and write are not imprinted in your genes or in your DNA, and genes and DNA won’t pass on your children and grandchildren and your descendants, through genetics.

You can be taught to read and write, eg at schools or home. Some people can learn faster than others, while others are slower, but that’s really depends on individual person, not on your genes or DNA.

How many times must I say this to you before you will learn from your mistake?

Stubborn ignorance are not a virtue quality. You need to learn to from your mistakes, otherwise you would look like foolish.

So stop bringing up reading and writing in regarding to Evolution.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The problem with "micro evolution" is that there is no fossil evidence of such, is there? While I think there is not, perhaps you can offer more than say-so that there is fossil evidence of micro evolution and show me that I'm wrong. Thanks. And I really do appreciate the answers to help along.

What would fossil evidence of micro-evolution look like, to you?

Keep in mind, we don't need fossils to observe micro-evolution. It's directly observable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Similarly, I suppose you don't think that language development among homo sapiens is significant either. I understand. You just don't want to accept the obvious. Since you keep talking about honesty, why don't you be honest about what is obvious? Such as -- humans being the only ones alive that talk about God, who pray, who invent machines to help keep them alive, as well as spaceships. Why don't you at least admit the obvious as being significant in their difference from other forms of life, including the greater ape relations? And really, if you don't think these difference are signifcant, I'll let you ruminate a while on these things.

It is not that significant biologically and that is what we are discussing. And you have a make believe friend. Well good for you. But that has nothing to do with the discussion. That your version of God is made up is rather obvious. You cannot maintain that belief and have a rational discussion. When your personal beliefs are threatened you can no longer allow yourself to reason.

There are many scientists that still believe in God. Their beliefs are not threatened by reality. They do not make the mistake that you make that is close to being blasphemous. You have the gall to try to tell your God how he had to make this world. Christians that are scientists study the world to see how he made it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are there any proofs of micro or macro evolutionary changes to show why and how humans can read, write, talk about God and death, invent machines to delay death, and transmitting their ideas to other humans, while animals do not do these things?

What makes you think humans are not animals. Tell me, are you made up by more than one cell? Do you have to consume other life (plant cells, animal cells etc.) to live? If you answered yes to both questions then you are an animal.

As to micro and macro evolution, both have been directly observed. But once again you do not understand the terminology that you are using.

 

[Earthtank]

I want to thank everyone that took their time and attempt to make evolution make sense but honestly, and with all due respect, it seems worse and more far fetched than religion. Everything is based off the past, nothing worth note that is observable today and seems to be riddled with assumptions and the best explanations seems to be "because that worked best even though there is 0 thought" or something along those lines.