Evidence For And Against Evolution

[PruePhillip]

So you are fine saying that your god kickstarted the big bang and then set back and watch everything unfold - which simply followed the laws of physics as they apply within the universe?

Who knows. Doesn't say. But it says "God commanded the seas to bring forth life"
the question has to be asked, "Commanded WHO?" And I suppose it's the laws of
"nature."
Everything in the universe has a "natural explanation" but the origin of the universe
by definition has no "law of nature" 'cos there was no law, and no nature. So some
one or something OUTSIDE of the universe had to have boot strapped it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Everything in the universe has a "natural explanation" but the origin of the universe
by definition has no "law of nature" 'cos there was no law, and no nature. So some
one or something OUTSIDE of the universe had to have boot strapped it.

A statement riddled with logical contradictions. There can't possibly have been a time at which there was "no law, and no nature" because time is a part of nature and the universe. Also, if you define the universe as "everything that exists" then it can't possibly have had a cause, because the cause would have to exist and so be part of the universe. If you define the universe in a narrower way, then what may have caused it (if it had a cause) could easily be natural because we have artificially restricted the term "universe" to be only a part of reality, and we simply do not know how much more of it there might be.

Of course, if you are wanting define the universe as everything that is "natural", then obviously any cause (if there was one) would not be natural, but that's just playing word games, it doesn't tell us anything about reality at all.

 

[Valjean]

Then I see the Cama is also evidence for evolution now.View attachment 32929
Funny that the cross between Camel and Lama can only be done by:
Artificial Insemination between Female lama with Male camel and not vice versa.
The offspring does not produce other offspring with each other.

Yes, at one time both camels and llamas had a common ancestor, but the population was split, and each diverged over thousands of generations. The changes between generations are tiny. Only over many generations does a clear divergence occur. Like the divergence of French, Italian and Romanian from the original Latin population. At no point do parents and children speak different languages.
Therefore, to claim that the crossing of a Lama and Camel proves evolution, is as good as telling me crossing a horse and Donkey to get a mule or hinney is evidence of the internal combustion engine proving evolution.[/quote]I don't get your point. What does a machine have to do with evolution? You do realize that evolution is driven by reproduction with variation? Machines don't reproduce with variation.
Question: What's your take on ring species?

And yet evolution introduced by human interferance dont even change the type of animal to something else.
It is not any evidence of Evolution at all, but evidence that there can be crossing of animals, and even this is very scarce.
Oh, and to cross cows with Bison is crossing a cow and bison, and not evidence of evolution.
It sems as if anything nowadays is used to "Prove Evolution".

You clearly don't understand the mechanisms of evolution -- yet you have a strong opinion on the subject.

Selective breeding has produced different species, and, in nature, we have observed homogenous populations diverging into new species within living memory.
Are you not aware of this?

 

[BilliardsBall]

.

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

View attachment 32918

​

Thoughts?

. ​

Most of the claims on that chart support creation!

 

[leov]

.

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

View attachment 32918

​

Thoughts?

. ​

Bible does not tell so...

 

[leov]

Genesis 1
God created the heavens
and the earth
and the earth was dark and oceanic (cloud planet like Venus, all oceans)
and the skies cleared
and the continents rose (granite)
and life came from the land (likely fresh water, or clay)
and life emerged from the sea
and finally man.

Appearance of scene for life is out of scope of evolution...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who knows. Doesn't say. But it says "God commanded the seas to bring forth life"
the question has to be asked, "Commanded WHO?" And I suppose it's the laws of
"nature."

My obvious question then is: do the laws of nature really require any "commanding"?
It seems to me that the laws just are.

When the laws of nature make 2 H atoms bind with an O atom to form H2O, then this doesn't seem to need any commanding. Instead, it just happens as a result of physical properties and circumstances.

Everything in the universe has a "natural explanation" but the origin of the universe
by definition has no "law of nature" 'cos there was no law, and no nature.

"by definition"? Which definition would that be?
It seems to that, at best, this is just unknown.

Who says that there is no "plain of existence" where laws operate which result in universe generation, just like laws inside the universe result in H and O atoms binding into water molecules?

So someone or something OUTSIDE of the universe had to have boot strapped it.

Sure, something triggered the big bang expansion.
Why that has to be a "who", or how it's even sensible to suggest it was a "who", is ... unclear, to say the least.

 

[Valjean]

I see you also have the vestigial eyes of fish that lives in dark caves, and lost their eye sight.
This is not evidence for evolution at all.
Why did the fish lose its eyes, and are only left with some residue?
When did this happen, was it in the first generation, second, or thousandth?

Why would natural selection not select against a useless yet expensive structure?

You clearly don't understand how natural selection works.

The fish that had eyesight and fell in the cave obviously did not have other sensory organs the blind counterpart has, so how did it survive?

Scenario:
The flooded cave was once part of a larger body of water. Fish could enter or leave.
The waterway changed. Water levels dropped. A population was isolated within the cave. As levels continued to fall the population was increasingly isolated farther and farther within the cave. By natural selection, over thousands of generations, the fish born with dark-cave useful features survived and reproduced more successfully. These features increased within the population and a new, small, blind species emerged.

Why did this fish not rather grow its own lantern such as the deep sea ones living today?
No, to use this as evidence as evolution is one huge error.
Show me where do we find a cat changing into a dog., a flea into a lice, or how did the dead leave butterfly get its colors?

The lanterns aren't there to help the fish to see -- there's nothing to see.
How did you not learn this in high school -- or earlier?
You don't understand natural selection.

All that will happen is one explanation to the next, connecting so called, but non existing "Dots", to prove the theory of evolution.

Quit saying "prove." Science doesn't prove things.
You don't understand the basics of science.

 

[Valjean]

The horse evidence was a concoction with no chronological sequence, and a collection of bones from 3 continents put together to come up with this story.
Again, only a story.

Why do you say there's no chronological sequence?

 

[Valjean]

Bible does not tell so...

What does the Bible have to do with the subject?

 

[shmogie]

.

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

View attachment 32918

​

Thoughts?

. ​

That isn´t evidence against evolution, and you know it.

There is evidence against evolution, and you know it.

I have no interest in providing it, others may if the choose.

I will stick to abiogenesis, which starts the evolution ball rolling, without it, there is no ball to roll.

Abiogenesis is a totally unknown process, wrapped up in circles, that are wrapped up in cylinders, that are wrapped up in wheels. Magic

There is no ball.

 

[ratiocinator]

There is evidence against evolution, and you know it.

I've never seen any.

I have no interest in providing it, others may if the choose.

Odd how nobody ever does provide any, isn't it?

 

[leov]

What does the Bible have to do with the subject?

Look up OP, on the right where the picture of Bible is.

 

[Valjean]

Abiogenesis is a totally unknown process, wrapped up in circles, that are wrapped up in cylinders, that are wrapped up in wheels. Magic

ROFL! Religion claiming science claims magic?!
Abiogenesis is hardly "totally unknown," and just because a process is not yet completely sorted out isn't evidence of magic poofing by an invisible god.

 

[shmogie]

I've never seen any.



Odd how nobody ever does provide any, isn't it?

No, not odd, because it has been provided before.

The old evolution myth of the close progression and relationships of organisms had to be abandoned,, in favor of a new approach to account for the actual wide disparity between groups, I forget the name but it begins with clad......................

evolution is not my interest, so I have no desire to debate it.

I told you where my interest is

 

[Valjean]

No, not odd, because it has been provided before.

The old evolution myth of the close progression and relationships of organisms had to be abandoned,, in favor of a new approach to account for the actual wide disparity between groups, I forget the name but it begins with clad......................

evolution is not my interest, so I have no desire to debate it.

I told you where my interest is

I have seen no empirical evidence against evolution, either; nor would such evidence be evidence for creationism.
"...had to be abandoned?" What are you talking about? Evidence supporting this just keeps on accumulating.

 

[shmogie]

ROFL! Religion claiming science claims magic?!
Abiogenesis is hardly "totally unknown," and just because a process is not yet completely sorted out isn't evidence of magic poofing by an invisible god.

It is not sorted out at all, either you are ignorant of the research, or you are being disingenuous.

When something appears, and there is no natural law to invoke to explain itś appearance, it must be by magic.

There is a reason why most informed evolutionists avoid abiogenesis like the plague, they know that to this point it is purely imaginary.

You don´t like the word magic ? How about unknown natural process that had to have occurred, better ?

It means magic.

 

[shmogie]

I have seen no empirical evidence against evolution, either; nor would such evidence be evidence for creationism.
"...had to be abandoned?" What are you talking about? Evidence supporting this just keeps on accumulating.

Why did you bring up creationism ? You guyś seemed obsessed by it. I didn´t mention it, and very, very rarely do.

Yet it constantly comes up. Interesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I see the Cama is also evidence for evolution now.View attachment 32929
Funny that the cross between Camel and Lama can only be done by:
Artificial Insemination between Female lama with Male camel and not vice versa.
The offspring does not produce other offspring with each other.
Therefore, to claim that the crossing of a Lama and Camel proves evolution, is as good as telling me crossing a horse and Donkey to get a mule or hinney is evidence of the internal combustion engine proving evolution.
The only difference in the Cama is that the Lama and Camel have both 74 chromosones.
And yet evolution introduced by human interferance dont even change the type of animal to something else.
It is not any evidence of Evolution at all, but evidence that there can be crossing of animals, and even this is very scarce.
Oh, and to cross cows with Bison is crossing a cow and bison, and not evidence of evolution.
It sems as if anything nowadays is used to "Prove Evolution".

Oh my. Seriously you do not even have a high school level of education here. Stop before you hurt yourself.

 

[Valjean]

It is not sorted out at all, either you are ignorant of the research, or you are being disingenuous.

When something appears, and there is no natural law to invoke to explain itś appearance, it must be by magic.

There is a reason why most informed evolutionists avoid abiogenesis like the plague, they know that to this point it is purely imaginary.

But abiogenesis is a very active area of research. No-one's avoiding it.

You don´t like the word magic ? How about unknown natural process that had to have occurred, better ?

It means magic.

No, unknown doesn't equate to magic. Unknowable, on the other hand...