Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

[idea]

There is no evidence for it no. I would say no.

So... you do not believe that "intelligence" is real? You do not see the value in going to school to increase your intelligence, because there is no such thing? You do not believe that IQ tests are measuring anything real? You don't believe in things like engineering, or art, or music compositions because you don't think "intelligence" is real, so it must not be able to create anything? ....

They may or may not. As it seems that there are certain constants in the universe. But there are also changes in the universe as well. Irrelevant to evolution.

The physical constants are relevant to everything. If it is made up of atoms, the micro structures should be determined by constant atomic interaction potentials. Has anyone explained "new" DNA atomic microstructures by saying that there are "new" atomic interaction potentials? of course not. Do they claim different chemical compositions? different formation temperatures and pressures? No. The only explanations I have heard are liberal arts explanations - things like "the animal wanted to survive" - this is not a scientific explanation. This is a liberal explanation. Show me an article outlining the actual atomic forces involved, and I might start believing you.

Good science is about repetable observations. One does not have to have it in a lab for it to be science. If that were the case then cosmology wouldn't exist at all. Astro-physics, my favorite science, cannot by the very nature of what it is that they study, put it in a lab to see if it is correct. So no, science is not simply repitition. It is observation. If something is only to have been observed once then it is not evidence. But observing it over and over and over again millions of times is evidence and science.

When did we learn about the fusion in stars? We understood it only after we created it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

"Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. (After we did this in the lab - only then could we be a little more confident of what was happening in the universe) During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe." - the lab experiment came first...

There are multiple ways to explain observations. Until it can be re-created (which would involve biogenesis in the case of evolution) it cannot be certain that the explanation for the observation is correct.

You are alive. Your great grandfather is dead. But your genes and family still live on. Evolution is about what genes are passed on to the next generation.

The theory of evolution involves replacing old genes with new ones - new and different ones. To preserve genes, is to eliminate change, and eliminate evolution. Genes are not preserved, they are changed. So I ask again, what "survives" according to the theory of evolution?

No. I do not believe that biology has been compromised in its integrity. I feel that there is a good many number of false science teachers and groups that are trying to usurp biology in an active disruption.

Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories

The above is the largest bio facility in Canada and the US...

618 of 867 (71%) of studies audited by the FDA were invalidated - in fact some believe the number to be higher than 71%,...
... IBT would later be described as being "at the center of one of the most far-reaching scandals in modern science, as thousands of its studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent"

from the other article I posted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=3&

"In some instances, he found, authors would remove bands from a gel, a test for showing what proteins are present in an experiment. Sometimes a row of bands would be duplicated and presented as the controls for a second experiment. Sometimes the background would be cleaned up, with Photoshop's rubber stamp or clone stamp tool, to make it prettier.

Some authors would change the contrast in an image to eliminate traces of a diagnostic stain that showed up in places where there shouldn't be one. Others would take images of cells from different experiments and assemble them as if all were growing on the same plate."

There is big money in biology - read this:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tle/Journal-editor-quits-in-conflict-scandal/

Lots of motivation to fabricate and falsify, and very difficult to reproduce or test that what someone is claiming is true...

read this
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2005/12/rentaresearcher.html

read this (Marc Hauser - evolutionary psychology)
http://io9.com/5613020/evolutionary-psychologist-under-investigation-for-shoddy-research-at-harvard

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/08/harvard-dean-confirms-misconduct-hauser-investigation

The Pitdown man fraud...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Sadly, this kind of stuff is going on all the time. Scientists are just humans. No humans are 100% honest, or 100% perfect - just like there are financial scandals, or athletic scandals, or political scandals - there are plenty of scientific scandals because it is just a group of humans trying to make money or trying to look smart etc.

 

[Looncall]

Here are my unanswered questions:

- Do you agree that there is a real entity which is "intelligence", that this thing "intelligence" does in fact exist, and does cause changes.

Intelligence is quite clearly a process, not a substance or an entity. Your question makes no sense. You do not get to sneak gods in by renaming them "intelligence".

You seem to have fallen afoul of the galloping reification that infests so much religious thinking.

 

[Yorutenchi]

So... you do not believe that "intelligence" is real? You do not see the value in going to school to increase your intelligence, because there is no such thing? You do not believe that IQ tests are measuring anything real? You don't believe in things like engineering, or art, or music compositions because you don't think "intelligence" is real, so it must not be able to create anything?

You were using a different context and you know it. There is no evidence of "intelligence" within the universe as a whole. There is evidence of local intelligence. Intelligence only seems to exist within the confines of evolved biological function.

The physical constants are relevant to everything. If it is made up of atoms, the micro structures should be determined by constant atomic interaction potentials. Has anyone explained "new" DNA atomic microstructures by saying that there are "new" atomic interaction potentials? of course not. Do they claim different chemical compositions? different formation temperatures and pressures? No. The only explanations I have heard are liberal arts explanations - things like "the animal wanted to survive" - this is not a scientific explanation. This is a liberal explanation. Show me an article outlining the actual atomic forces involved, and I might start believing you.

I have never heard anyone say it was because they wanted to survive. You have had a very poor education of evolution.

The different chemical possibilities is because the interaction of molecules allow for different kinds of bonds. Those laws dictating those bonds are always constant but there are possibilities for a multiple different bonds. If I can write and infinite amount of books and words. However I still only need the same characters. Its like saying that we can't have new books because we haven't invented new letters yet.

If you are asking about the biological mechanism for how DNA mutates we understand that very well. Do you want a link?

When did we learn about the fusion in stars? We understood it only after we created it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

"Building upon the nuclear transmutation experiments by Ernest Rutherford, carried out several years earlier, the laboratory fusion of hydrogen isotopes was first accomplished by Mark Oliphant in 1932. (After we did this in the lab - only then could we be a little more confident of what was happening in the universe) During the remainder of that decade the steps of the main cycle of nuclear fusion in stars were worked out by Hans Bethe." - the lab experiment came first...

There are multiple ways to explain observations. Until it can be re-created (which would involve biogenesis in the case of evolution) it cannot be certain that the explanation for the observation is correct.

We have never created experiments on gravity. We have only ever observed its effects. We have never created a black hole but we have managed to understand them to a degree. Same for many things in science that are not questioned.

I don't know what you are asking about biogensis. There is no other explanation that fits with the evidence other than evolution in terms of biology. Are you talking bout Abiogensis?

The theory of evolution involves replacing old genes with new ones - new and different ones. To preserve genes, is to eliminate change, and eliminate evolution. Genes are not preserved, they are changed. So I ask again, what "survives" according to the theory of evolution?

The offspring. All of us contain DNA that has survived since before we split from animals and plants. We have new additions and changes. Life itself is what is preserved. If it didn't survive we wouldn't have any life on this planet. The life as it appears on this planet will change. But the fact that life still exists means it has survived. We are not new life that sprung out of the earth unrelated to the past.

Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Bio-Test_Laboratories

The above is the largest bio facility in Canada and the US...

618 of 867 (71%) of studies audited by the FDA were invalidated - in fact some believe the number to be higher than 71%,...
... IBT would later be described as being "at the center of one of the most far-reaching scandals in modern science, as thousands of its studies were revealed through EPA and FDA investigations to be fraudulent"

from the other article I posted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/science/24frau.html?_r=3&

"In some instances, he found, authors would remove bands from a gel, a test for showing what proteins are present in an experiment. Sometimes a row of bands would be duplicated and presented as the controls for a second experiment. Sometimes the background would be cleaned up, with Photoshop's rubber stamp or clone stamp tool, to make it prettier.

Some authors would change the contrast in an image to eliminate traces of a diagnostic stain that showed up in places where there shouldn't be one. Others would take images of cells from different experiments and assemble them as if all were growing on the same plate."

There is big money in biology - read this:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?artic...tle/Journal-editor-quits-in-conflict-scandal/

Lots of motivation to fabricate and falsify, and very difficult to reproduce or test that what someone is claiming is true...

read this
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2005/12/rentaresearcher.html

read this (Marc Hauser - evolutionary psychology)
http://io9.com/5613020/evolutionary-psychologist-under-investigation-for-shoddy-research-at-harvard

http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/08/harvard-dean-confirms-misconduct-hauser-investigation

The Pitdown man fraud...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Sadly, this kind of stuff is going on all the time. Scientists are just humans. No humans are 100% honest, or 100% perfect - just like there are financial scandals, or athletic scandals, or political scandals - there are plenty of scientific scandals because it is just a group of humans trying to make money or trying to look smart etc.

The first one was about drug companies faking its research and effectiveness. This isn't about the research of biology in evolution.

The pitdown was found out to be a fraud by an evolutionist.

All of these frauds found are found only because the light of the truth of the science behind it made it possible to find it. If the whole science was fabricated then we wouldn't have been able to find these frauds.

I didn't say there was no fraud in science. I stated that the theory of evolution is not based on fraud.

 

[David M]

Here are my unanswered questions:

- Do you agree that there is a real entity which is "intelligence", that this thing "intelligence" does in fact exist, and does cause changes.

No, intelligence is a classification not an entity. It exists as an emergent property of living thinsg at an individual level and can cause changes but other changes are not caused by intelligence.

- Do you agree that physical constants exist? that the interaction potential of atoms does not change over time, and therefore atomic micro structures also do not change over time?

Yes. No - radioactive decay alters atomic structures. Micro-structures such as the arrangement of atoms change all the time. Mutations during the replication of DNA is an observed fact.

- Do you agree that good science is repeatable and reproducible. (repeatable is "each after their own kind".... this is what we actually observe)

Yes (among other things), evolutionary science is repeatable and reproducible.

- Do you agree that life is not "surviving", that everything dies, that the theory of evolution is actually a theory of extinction, not of survival?

No, your take on this is ridiculous. Life survives by having offspring, the fact that organisms die is an attribute of life. Every living thing on the planet today is the result of the survival of innumerable ancestors in a line stretching back billions of years.

Your argument about species extinction is also rubbish, you are confusing the labels that humans apply with the reality that a new species is descended from the ancestral species, the lineage has survived. Your argumrnt basically boils down to saying that because my grandparents are now dead my family has gone extinct.

The theory of evolution is a theory of how life diversifies.

If creationism were true then it is also a story of extinction and not survival, by the exact criteria that you use.

-

Do you agree that the biological sciences are filled with cases of scientific misconduct, fabrication and falsification of results? Do you understand why many people do not trust "peer reviewed" journals?

No, There are cases of misconduct but they are the exception (creationism on the other hand is replete with misconduct and fabriction). The good thing aboput science is that, ultimately, it is self-correcting, the misconduct comes to light and the bad science is discarded. Creationist still trot out the same crap year after year.

 

[David M]

So... you do not believe that "intelligence" is real? You do not see the value in going to school to increase your intelligence, because there is no such thing? You do not believe that IQ tests are measuring anything real? You don't believe in things like engineering, or art, or music compositions because you don't think "intelligence" is real, so it must not be able to create anything? ....

Going to schoold does not increase intelligence, it increases knoweldge and the ability to use knowledge. IQ tests measure the ability to take IQ tests, the simple fact that the IQ of African-Americans rose sharply over a few generations once proper education was made available demonstrates that IQ is not a measure of underlying intelligence.

The physical constants are relevant to everything. If it is made up of atoms, the micro structures should be determined by constant atomic interaction potentials. Has anyone explained "new" DNA atomic microstructures by saying that there are "new" atomic interaction potentials? of course not. Do they claim different chemical compositions? different formation temperatures and pressures? No. The only explanations I have heard are liberal arts explanations - things like "the animal wanted to survive" - this is not a scientific explanation. This is a liberal explanation. Show me an article outlining the actual atomic forces involved, and I might start believing you.

Then stop going to BS creationist websites and go read some scientific papers. There is a huge amount of information about how organic molecules form and how DNA operates and its potential effects on protein folding.

 

[David M]

The theory of evolution involves replacing old genes with new ones - new and different ones. To preserve genes, is to eliminate change, and eliminate evolution. Genes are not preserved, they are changed. So I ask again, what "survives" according to the theory of evolution?

Again your demonstrate your ignorance of what the Theory of Evolution actually states, its the "My Grandparents are dead so my family is extinct" argument again.

Were you even remotely aware that some genes are highly conserved (those related to vital metabolic funtions for example). A new version of a gene is a case of the gene "surviving".

 

[idea]

Intelligence is quite clearly a process, not a substance or an entity. Your question makes no sense. You do not get to sneak gods in by renaming them "intelligence".

You seem to have fallen afoul of the galloping reification that infests so much religious thinking.

Intelligence is a substance - a measurable, quantifiable, substance - just as energy, and information is a substance. It is one of the substances that separates living and non-living entities.

You were using a different context and you know it. There is no evidence of "intelligence" within the universe as a whole. There is evidence of local intelligence. Intelligence only seems to exist within the confines of evolved biological function.

There is matter inside humans, and matter inside the planets and stars. There is energy within humans, and energy within the stars. There is intelligence within humans, and intelligence within the universe. That which exists in small quantities on the earth also exists in larger quantities in the universe.

I have never heard anyone say it was because they wanted to survive. You have had a very poor education of evolution.

Please...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Stop dodging the questions.
LOL - this phrase has now been added to try and address the contradictions of ideas "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." which is nonsense. Evolution requires new forms, not copies of form. Nothing survives according to evolution, and yet, people still claim that it is caused by a will to survive.

The different chemical possibilities is because the interaction of molecules allow for different kinds of bonds. Those laws dictating those bonds are always constant but there are possibilities for a multiple different bonds. If I can write and infinite amount of books and words. However I still only need the same characters. Its like saying that we can't have new books because we haven't invented new letters yet.

If you are asking about the biological mechanism for how DNA mutates we understand that very well. Do you want a link?

Yes, there are different types of steel depending on heat treatments - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treating
We can create different microstructures from scratch by controlling the temperatures and pressures during formation. Again, for evolution to claim such an understanding - they would also have to create DNA molecules from scratch, from a test tube. Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated. Life comes from life - it needs the intelligence of the parent, the pattern from a parent - it needs directions, it needs information and intelligence to form, not just atomic interaction potentials.

We have never created experiments on gravity. We have only ever observed its effects. We have never created a black hole but we have managed to understand them to a degree. Same for many things in science that are not questioned.

No one claims they fully understand gravity. When we are able to create hover-boards, then we can claim an understanding of gravity. Looks like we can create little black holes though

I don't know what you are asking about biogensis. There is no other explanation that fits with the evidence other than evolution in terms of biology. Are you talking bout Abiogensis?

Sorry, depends on whose definition you go by. I will start using the term abiogenesis.

"The term biogenesis was coined by Henry Charlton Bastian to mean the generation of a life form from nonliving materials, however, Thomas Henry Huxley chose the term abiogenesis and redefined biogenesis for life arising from preexisting life.”

The offspring. All of us contain DNA that has survived since before we split from animals and plants. We have new additions and changes. Life itself is what is preserved. If it didn't survive we wouldn't have any life on this planet. The life as it appears on this planet will change. But the fact that life still exists means it has survived. We are not new life that sprung out of the earth unrelated to the past.

So you believe that some general thing called "life" is what survives. It is not an exact copy of the DNA, it is not matter, or energy, but some vague entity called "life". Tell me, what if life? What makes something alive? For religious people, it is the presence of intelligence/spirit/conscience/thoughts/free will that make something alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[42][43][44][45] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a substance.[46][47][48]"

So, a "process" not a "substance" survives? I believe it is an actual substance that survives. It is much easier for religious people to define life than scientists.

The first one was about drug companies faking its research and effectiveness. This isn't about the research of biology in evolution.

The claim to fame for evolutionists is the tie to making drugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Applications
"Many human diseases are not static phenomena, but capable of evolution. Viruses, bacteria, fungi and cancers evolve to be resistant to host immune defences, as well as pharmaceutical drugs.[303][304][305] These same problems occur in agriculture with pesticide[306] and herbicide[307] resistance."

The issues we have and are seeing in the agricultural world, and pharmaceutical worlds all stem from evolutionary "research".

The pitdown was found out to be a fraud by an evolutionist.

All of these frauds found are found only because the light of the truth of the science behind it made it possible to find it. If the whole science was fabricated then we wouldn't have been able to find these frauds.

I didn't say there was no fraud in science. I stated that the theory of evolution is not based on fraud.

All the frauds are not brought to light, only the tip of the iceberg is being published.

I think it's funny that for theories of the past everyone is quick to say "One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete."

but for current theories, everyone wants to say "We finally got it right! This time there were no mistakes, this time it is a fact! There is no new piece of information that could possibly change our minds now"

I know we were wrong in the past, but this time, we are right...

Question the status pro, and you get laughed at...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientists_who_committed_suicide

I feel bad for the scientists like Boltzmann - the equation written on his tombstone is now in textbooks, but everyone told him he was wrong at the time because he did not like to go along with what was popular. It really is a popularity contest at its core.

Sorry, I do not have time to reply to anything more. Everyone is free to keep their "beliefs", I have not been convinced by any of you to change mine. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday everyone.

 

[SkepticThinker]

How do you deal with the extreme probability that life did not "come about" randomly? I saw an estimate that there is a 1(insert 40 zeroes here):1 chance that life developed on Earth randomly. That probability is practically zero.

What are the odds that the specific god you believe in created the universe and everything in it?

You're still talking about abiogenesis when the thread title suggest we should be talking about evolution.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm still trying to figure out how you or anyone else would think the God of Israel didn't create it or might not have.

Probably for the same reason you don't believe the flying spaghetti monster created the universe. Or Allah. Or Zoroaster. Or Thor.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which came first, the plant or the animal? God created the plants before He created animals so the question has been answered for you in Genesis.

You know what I'm talking about when I say kind. Don't be silly. Cats and dogs are different kinds of animals. Calico cats and tabbies are like kinds, both are cats.

Speciation is micro-evolution. It involves small changes among like kinds. It does not involve ape-like ancestor to man. That is macro-evolution and there is no proof whatever that macro-evolution has ever taken place. There is only "evidence" that can and has been interpreted to support creation so it does not prove macro-evolution. Simply see the icr.org website.

I ask again:

Why are dogs and cats different kinds?

Are wolves and dogs the same kind?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Show us a paper that isn't biased toward evolution instead of assuming it. Do any such papers exist in your journals? No, because the journal's editors would not publish creationist's papers because of bias. Did you not know this?

They would if creationists followed the same rigorous scientific procedures that evolution scientists do when writing scientific papers.

 

[David M]

Question the status pro, and you get laughed at...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientists_who_committed_suicide

I feel bad for the scientists like Boltzmann - the equation written on his tombstone is now in textbooks, but everyone told him he was wrong at the time because he did not like to go along with what was popular. It really is a popularity contest at its core

Strange how you omit to mention the scientists on that list did not question the status quo and still committed suicide.

Boltzman was well regarded, his position had a lot of support from other scientists. It was not popularity but the evidence that led to his equations being confirmed as correct.

 

[Looncall]

Intelligence is a substance - a measurable, quantifiable, substance - just as energy, and information is a substance. It is one of the substances that separates living and non-living entities.

.

This an outmoded, primitive style of thinking, similar to the erroneous idea of phlogiston. Please join the 21st century!

Non of these is a substance; one cannot carry them around in a jar. Energy, for example, is just a shorthand term for describing the states of objects. Your post is just silly reification.

What separates living and non-living things is the different arrangements of their parts.

 

[idea]

Strange how you omit to mention the scientists on that list did not question the status quo and still committed suicide.

Boltzman was well regarded, his position had a lot of support from other scientists. It was not popularity but the evidence that led to his equations being confirmed as correct.

Why did Boltzman have to write his equation on his tombstone for "future less biased generations"? The status quo was "Energetics" at the time, Ernst Mach, and others like him, killed Boltzman.

This an outmoded, primitive style of thinking, similar to the erroneous idea of phlogiston. Please join the 21st century!

Non of these is a substance; one cannot carry them around in a jar. Energy, for example, is just a shorthand term for describing the states of objects. Your post is just silly reification.

What separates living and non-living things is the different arrangements of their parts.

Have you taken a basic thermodynamics course? Energy is also a measurable, quantifiable substance... you know, conservation principles etc.? You can carry energy around in a jar - they are called batteries... If it helps you to visualize it better, remember that famous equ e = mc^2? You can change matter into energy, and visa versa - Energy is not so different than matter. Intelligence and information are also quantifiable substances. I'm glad you watched the video though

 

[David M]

Why did Boltzman have to write his equation on his tombstone for "future less biased generations"? The status quo was "Energetics" at the time, Ernst Mach, and others like him, killed Boltzman.

What evidence do you have the he did so for "future less biased generations", that tombstone dates from 2 decades after his death.

The "status quo" was not "energetics", there were 2 schools of thought at the time and both had supporters, Maxwell and Gibbs certainly supported Boltzmann. You are misrepresenting history.

 

[Looncall]

Why did Boltzman have to write his equation on his tombstone for "future less biased generations"? The status quo was "Energetics" at the time, Ernst Mach, and others like him, killed Boltzman.





Have you taken a basic thermodynamics course? Energy is also a measurable, quantifiable substance... you know, conservation principles etc.? You can carry energy around in a jar - they are called batteries... If it helps you to visualize it better, remember that famous equ e = mc^2? You can change matter into energy, and visa versa - Energy is not so different than matter. Intelligence and information are also quantifiable substances. I'm glad you watched the video though

Energy does not exist by itself. For example, heat energy is just the motion of atoms. Batteries contain chemicals in certain states; correctly connected, they change state by causing electrons to move. The term energy is just a shorthand for more complex expressions.

When nuclear energy is released (e = mc^2), the energy comes out as the motions of particles.

Intelligence is a process taking place in brains, not a substance.

 

[Yorutenchi]

Intelligence is a substance - a measurable, quantifiable, substance - just as energy, and information is a substance. It is one of the substances that separates living and non-living entities.
There is matter inside humans, and matter inside the planets and stars. There is energy within humans, and energy within the stars. There is intelligence within humans, and intelligence within the universe. That which exists in small quantities on the earth also exists in larger quantities in the universe.

Intelligence isn't a substance. It is a quality. We have baboons. Does that mean that larger scale baboons exist in outer-space?

Please...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

Stop dodging the questions.
LOL - this phrase has now been added to try and address the contradictions of ideas "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations." which is nonsense. Evolution requires new forms, not copies of form. Nothing survives according to evolution, and yet, people still claim that it is caused by a will to survive.

I stand by my comment. You are either not understanding what is being said or you choose not to. I am wondering which at this point.

I shall try to explain but only once more. Survival means producing the most offspring. The traits that allowed them to survive and produce multiple offspring are passed down. Each and every generation will have slightly different needs as different niche are created. Most eventual paths of evolution will fail. Only the scant few survive. You are alive because your parents were successful at reproducing. They in turn exist because of your grandparent's successes. So on and so forth. That is what this means.

Yes, there are different types of steel depending on heat treatments - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_treating
We can create different microstructures from scratch by controlling the temperatures and pressures during formation. Again, for evolution to claim such an understanding - they would also have to create DNA molecules from scratch, from a test tube. Abiogenesis has not been demonstrated. Life comes from life - it needs the intelligence of the parent, the pattern from a parent - it needs directions, it needs information and intelligence to form, not just atomic interaction potentials.

Evolution states life comes from life. The beginning of life is a specific theory. Even if god created the first bacteria evolution would still be true.

Because we don't fully understand something does not mean we can simply say it is the result of intelligence. That is the thinking of bronze age men.

No one claims they fully understand gravity. When we are able to create hover-boards, then we can claim an understanding of gravity. Looks like we can create little black holes though

Just because we cannot make a hoverboard doesn't mean that we don't understand the functions of gravity. What if it is impossible?

So you believe that some general thing called "life" is what survives. It is not an exact copy of the DNA, it is not matter, or energy, but some vague entity called "life". Tell me, what if life? What makes something alive? For religious people, it is the presence of intelligence/spirit/conscience/thoughts/free will that make something alive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life
"It is a challenge for scientists and philosophers to define life in unequivocal terms.[42][43][44][45] This is difficult partly because life is a process, not a substance.[46][47][48]"

So, a "process" not a "substance" survives? I believe it is an actual substance that survives. It is much easier for religious people to define life than scientists.

You would be wrong then. Life is nothing more than the biological processes that allow us to function. That is how it is defined. If you believe in a soul of some kind then that is your belief but there is no evidence of a soul.

The claim to fame for evolutionists is the tie to making drugs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Applications
"Many human diseases are not static phenomena, but capable of evolution. Viruses, bacteria, fungi and cancers evolve to be resistant to host immune defences, as well as pharmaceutical drugs.[303][304][305] These same problems occur in agriculture with pesticide[306] and herbicide[307] resistance."

The issues we have and are seeing in the agricultural world, and pharmaceutical worlds all stem from evolutionary "research".

Evolution's claim to fame is based on the fact that it has withstood every ounce of questioning and come out stronger. It has endless applications with medicine and has been the sole basis for many of our major medical breakthroughs. Just because one of the most corrupt industries make up its research to sell us drugs does not undermine the science behind evolution.

Without the knowledge of evolution and genetics we would not have the food production we have today. GMO saves lives.

All the frauds are not brought to light, only the tip of the iceberg is being published.

I think it's funny that for theories of the past everyone is quick to say "One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete."

but for current theories, everyone wants to say "We finally got it right! This time there were no mistakes, this time it is a fact! There is no new piece of information that could possibly change our minds now"

I know we were wrong in the past, but this time, we are right...

Question the status pro, and you get laughed at...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientists_who_committed_suicide

I feel bad for the scientists like Boltzmann - the equation written on his tombstone is now in textbooks, but everyone told him he was wrong at the time because he did not like to go along with what was popular. It really is a popularity contest at its core.

Sorry, I do not have time to reply to anything more. Everyone is free to keep their "beliefs", I have not been convinced by any of you to change mine. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday everyone.

Science is not a popularity contest. If something is not sound it will be weeded out. It may take time but it will be weeded out. In science what is true will come to light. It may take time but it will come to light. We have never had a theory in any field to have grown to be as large and encompassing as evolution. We have never seen a theory last so long under such scrutiny. Our knowledge and understanding of it has evolved over the years as we learn more and more about our universe and life in general.

Are you really under the delusion that all of science is just pure popularity? You say that while typing on a device unimaginable 40 years ago? All thanks to science?

 

[Parsimony]

For religious people, it is the presence of intelligence/spirit/conscience/thoughts/free will that make something alive,

Plants and bacteria aren't alive then?

 

[dust1n]

If you really care about what the creationist scientists are doing ICR.org is a good place to find out.

"Neither evolution nor creation can be scientifically proved, since they are dealing with history instead of repeatable science. For more information on this topic, see “The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins“ by Dr. Duane Gish.

http://www.icr.org/how-we-do-research

AH, so even ICR tends to agree that creationism is about as provable as evolution, which they think is false.

 

[idea]

Plants and bacteria aren't alive then?

There is a small bit of intelligence within all living matter - including plants and bacteria.