Evidence For And Against Evolution

[Subduction Zone]

Humans, unlike their predecessors, are on a collision course provoking utter ruination of the earth. That is truth. Chimpanzees and bonobos and fish and shrimp are not on this destructive course set to jeopardize mankind's existence. Only mankind is. Nuclear plants breaking down, and things like that. Whether you believe it or not, the Bible says that God will destroy those who are destroying the earth. Revelation 11:18.

All sorts of holy books sell the end of the Earth stories. As a result they all rate a big "So what?"

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you really do firmly believe that "life" evolved from nonliving substances to somehow become one cell (or more than one cell) that burgeoned forth into many cells, and then separated somehow or naturally selected (?) to emerge eventually to plants and animals. I've looked at your evidence and I have decided it's mainly fabricated.

Abiogenesis is a separate but related topic. If you do not understand evolution, which you don't, then you will never understand abiogenesis. Let's stick to one subject at a time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My logic is showing that God, who is the Grand Creator and Originator of life, is going to do away with what destructive mankind has done to the earth. Much of what is termed as Christianity is certainly not applauded or evidenced, shall we say, in the Bible.

Don't even bring up logic. You keep failing in your arguments.

Again, why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

But you repeatedly demonstrate an almost complete ignorance of the sciences and how they are done. And you ignore offers to even go over the basics. That makes your opinion of no value at all. And you forgot the Ninth Commandment again.

You might want to mention that to the writer of the following:
"Remember domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and Darwin’s tree of life metaphor we learned about in high school biology? That way of describing living-things lineages is just science’s best guess about how genes have mutated and split over time to change things into what they are today."
An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”
The associate professor there offered an interesting analogy, I hope you read it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Abiogenesis is a separate but related topic. If you do not understand evolution, which you don't, then you will never understand abiogenesis. Let's stick to one subject at a time.

It's impossible to discuss evolution without the context of where did that first cell supposedly come from and how? And how do you or anyone know what that first cell really was. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are inextricably connected. I'm not about to discuss how that first cell came about. But surely you really don't think scientists really know what that first cell was in reality, do you? (I hope not. Because that's where the 9th commandment you like to assert would come in to the picture.)

 

[YoursTrue]

Don't even bring up logic. You keep failing in your arguments.

Again, why are you afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

What evidence? The evidence of morphing cellular structure that is not there in realistic terms? I mean you can see by radiology a growing embryo. But is that evolution? If you say yes, I'll say no it isn't. I might go back to Haeckel. Or I might say some would think that the "natural selection" of the genetic structure goes from all-?- the forms of evolution from two cells combining by a natural force and pushed by "natural selection" from those two cells to millions of cells. (Right?)

 

[YoursTrue]

All sorts of holy books sell the end of the Earth stories. As a result they all rate a big "So what?"

There's one big deal. That mankind IS destroying its own habitat. Gorillas and fishes are not. Proof that mankind is different than gorillas, chimpanzees, fish, whatever you want to call them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's impossible to discuss evolution without the context of where did that first cell supposedly come from and how? And how do you or anyone know what that first cell really was. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are inextricably connected. I'm not about to discuss how that first cell came about. But surely you really don't think scientists really know what that first cell was in reality, do you? (I hope not. Because that's where the 9th commandment you like to assert would come in to the picture.)

Nonsense. Remember, you have a very poor understanding of the sciences. Here is an analogy. For someone to know how I got from New York to Los Angeles a knowledge of how I got to New York in the first place is not mandatory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's one big deal. That mankind IS destroying its own habitat. Gorillas and fishes are not. Proof that mankind is different than gorillas, chimpanzees, fish, whatever you want to call them.

We know mankind is different. Such "proof" is not needed. You are making poor arguments again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What evidence? The evidence of morphing cellular structure that is not there in realistic terms? I mean you can see by radiology a growing embryo. But is that evolution? If you say yes, I'll say no it isn't. I might go back to Haeckel. Or I might say some would think that the "natural selection" of the genetic structure goes from all-?- the forms of evolution from two cells combining by a natural force and pushed by "natural selection" from those two cells to millions of cells. (Right?)

Please, no strawman arguments. And until you learn what is and is not evidence you are in no position to demand any. Since you refuse to learn what evidence is in the first place you are in no position to judge that evidence. All you will ever do is to deny it.

Are you ready to learn yet?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You might want to mention that to the writer of the following:
"Remember domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species and Darwin’s tree of life metaphor we learned about in high school biology? That way of describing living-things lineages is just science’s best guess about how genes have mutated and split over time to change things into what they are today."
An Evolution in the Understanding of Evolution – “Essentially, All Models Are Wrong”
The associate professor there offered an interesting analogy, I hope you read it.

Wow!! How many times did you link an article that you did not understand?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The idea that you figure all "life" on earth, that is, came from one cell coming from -- who knows where.

Why are you ignoring my more recent posts?

You believe Piltdown Man is a fake, yes?

Therefore, you must accept the reliability of carbon dating and the existing fossil record we have that shows human evolution from ape-like ancestors, right?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's impossible to discuss evolution without the context of where did that first cell supposedly come from and how? And how do you or anyone know what that first cell really was. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are inextricably connected. I'm not about to discuss how that first cell came about. But surely you really don't think scientists really know what that first cell was in reality, do you? (I hope not. Because that's where the 9th commandment you like to assert would come in to the picture.)

Of course it's not. It's done all the time.
Pick up a science journal some time and give it a read.

 

[Skwim]

They (scientists) are guessing when it comes to many, m.a.n.y things. That is clear to me.

In a sense you are correct.

Guess: "to form an estimate or conjecture." Which is what science does, along with explanation, by constructing hypotheses, which are "a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts."
source

When you can prove beyond doubt that life began with one cell just like that out of where no one really 'knows' as far as evolutionists are concerned, and then they multiplied by "natural selection" into plants and animals then we'll have a discussion.

The problem here is that proof, honest-to-god proof, only exists in three realms: mathematics, logic, and in the expression of alcohol content. Outside of these the closest science comes to proof is "fact," of which Stephen Jay Gould said:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."
​

Which is why science can claim gravitation and evolution are facts.

.

​

 

[ratiocinator]

It's impossible to discuss evolution without the context of where did that first cell supposedly come from and how? And how do you or anyone know what that first cell really was. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are inextricably connected.

This is one of the most absurd of creationist's claims - and that's saying a great deal. Let's say "the first cell" was magicked into existence by your favourite god, or created by aliens, or dropped into our universe by the same multi-dimensional beings that created the universe as an experiment, or created by a race of invisible purple elves called Eric.

How does that change the theory of evolution or the evidence for it? Hint: it doesn't.

 

[gnostic]

It's impossible to discuss evolution without the context of where did that first cell supposedly come from and how? And how do you or anyone know what that first cell really was. Abiogenesis and evolutionary theory are inextricably connected. I'm not about to discuss how that first cell came about. But surely you really don't think scientists really know what that first cell was in reality, do you? (I hope not. Because that's where the 9th commandment you like to assert would come in to the picture.)

This is absolutely wrong.

You can learn Evolution without learning Abiogenesis, and that is the case of majority of biology-related courses.

No universities that I know of are teaching Abiogenesis to undergrad students (eg bachelor degree courses).

And considering that Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is therefore isn’t “science”...yet. Meaning, Abiogenesis is currently still being investigated and researched by advanced biochemist researchers, and there is no agreement (consensus) yet as to which model is the one that started life on Earth.

Until there is consensus on Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis is a specialised area of research, not available (as a course or subject) to any undergraduate students.

So learning biology today, requires understanding of evolution, not abiogenesis.

And as @ratiocinator , have already said, which ever model of Abiogenesis being accepted in the future, it won’t change anything we have learned about Evolution.

For instance, any biology studying the evolution of horse, only need to study any equine species, and so they don’t need to know where the first cellular organisms. What would be the point that student studying something that isn’t relevant to his course?

 

[YoursTrue]

Nonsense. Remember, you have a very poor understanding of the sciences. Here is an analogy. For someone to know how I got from New York to Los Angeles a knowledge of how I got to New York in the first place is not mandatory.

Well, it could be mandatory depending upon the circumstances. I could think of many scenarios in which it would be important, and possibly necessary. Let's say a person was doing a biography on you. Or was checking into your background. Yup, it doesn't have to be mandatory if one is not curious or has a need to know. Many a person was duped by false backgrounds of a person. Imposters are not that rare unfortunately. But then guesswork as to how you got there could be an interesting exploit.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is absolutely wrong.

You can learn Evolution without learning Abiogenesis, and that is the case of majority of biology-related courses.

No universities that I know of are teaching Abiogenesis to undergrad students (eg bachelor degree courses).

And considering that Abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, it is therefore isn’t “science”...yet. Meaning, Abiogenesis is currently still being investigated and researched by advanced biochemist researchers, and there is no agreement (consensus) yet as to which model is the one that started life on Earth.

Until there is consensus on Abiogenesis, Abiogenesis is a specialised area of research, not available (as a course or subject) to any undergraduate students.

So learning biology today, requires understanding of evolution, not abiogenesis.

And as @ratiocinator , have already said, which ever model of Abiogenesis being accepted in the future, it won’t change anything we have learned about Evolution.

For instance, any biology studying the evolution of horse, only need to study any equine species, and so they don’t need to know where the first cellular organisms. What would be the point that student studying something that isn’t relevant to his course?

Despite the concept of evolution, has anyone proved that a single cell emerged from somewhere, and where that essence of somewhere came from? Yes, the concept of evolution is based on the theory of something live (one cell perhaps?) emerging from something not living. No one knows. Sure you can examine cells and bone structures. And make hypotheses about how they got there, from where. That's the theory of evolution. Things change all the time about those hypothetical links from one cell to the many and then burgeoning off to plants and animals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it could be mandatory depending upon the circumstances. I could think of many scenarios in which it would be important, and possibly necessary. Let's say a person was doing a biography on you. Or was checking into your background. Yup, it doesn't have to be mandatory if one is not curious or has a need to know. Many a person was duped by false backgrounds of a person. Imposters are not that rare unfortunately. But then guesswork as to how you got there could be an interesting exploit.

Wow, now that is desperation.

What matters is the trip.

Just as in evolution once life got here, regardless of source, that was when evolution began.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Despite the concept of evolution, has anyone proved that a single cell emerged from somewhere, and where that essence of somewhere came from? Yes, the concept of evolution is based on the theory of something live (one cell perhaps?) emerging from something not living. No one knows. Sure you can examine cells and bone structures. And make hypotheses about how they got there, from where. That's the theory of evolution. Things change all the time about those hypothetical links from one cell to the many and then burgeoning off to plants and animals.

Again, you should not use the word "prove" when it comes to the sciences. Even gravity is not "proven". What matters is evidence and yes there is evidence for that. But you know the rule. You have denied evidence too many times. Now you need to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is not that difficult of a concept. I am confident that you can understand it.