• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evidence showing evolution from one species to another

outhouse

Atheistically
You are quite wrong, sir.

This is something you factually cannot demonstrate at all! or provide any examples of,because they do not exist.

I follow the credible academic road here, and it seems your just making things up as you go which all amount to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You are welcome to provide credible sources to substantiate your point.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Billions of years is mythology as far as I am concerned.

Try education and knowledge, it fixes that problem right up.

Fanaticism is a terrible thing bud. Anything that makes people refuse education and starts them making claims, to back things they are completely void of knowledge on, is just sad.


You don't understand science, biology or geology, you don't have a clue about anthropology, BUT the worst thing here is you lack biblical credible knowledge as well.


In a debate sir knowledge is power, please do not come unarmed.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
And those particular mutations are selected against.

It's been used for things kind of like that before. I recall a genetic algorithm being used to reduce the drag of a P-51's wing, for example.

Did the wing start pondering the meaning of life?

The genetic algorithm hones in on the most efficient way to satisfy the fitness function(s), less drag while maintaining lift etc, no more no less-

The wing could arguably be a far better wing, if it was self aware and thought about how to do it's job better! But unless that was specified as a fitness function, it's never going to happen as an unintended consequence.

Under classical evolution alone, the fitness function is reproduction, nothing more, nothing less.
 
Last edited:

dust1n

Zindīq
Well, you certainly can't prove how much time has passed since creation. You can look at your rocks and do your dating but that is in no way to be considered 100% accurate. How do you know whether or not those rocks did or didn't experience outside radioactive influences that would dramatically affect test results?

Billions of years is all just based on assumption, there is no hard evidence of billions of years.

Here's a Christian scientist at CalTech, explaining how radiometric dating works:

"Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies. Assuming a strictly literal interpretation of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old. Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old. Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best. Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues.

The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community. Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. God has called us to be "wise as serpents" (Matt. 10:16) even in this scientific age. In spite of this, differences still occur within the church. A disagreement over the age of the Earth is relatively minor in the whole scope of Christianity; it is more important to agree on the Rock of Ages than on the age of rocks. But because God has also called us to wisdom, this issue is worthy of study.

Rocks are made up of many individual crystals, and each crystal is usually made up of at least several different chemical elements such as iron, magnesium, silicon, etc. Most of the elements in nature are stable and do not change. However, some elements are not completely stable in their natural state. Some of the atoms eventually change from one element to another by a process called radioactive decay. If there are a lot of atoms of the original element, called the parent element, the atoms decay to another element, called the daughter element, at a predictable rate. The passage of time can be charted by the reduction in the number of parent atoms, and the increase in the number of daughter atoms.

Radiometric dating can be compared to an hourglass. When the glass is turned over, sand runs from the top to the bottom. Radioactive atoms are like individual grains of sand--radioactive decays are like the falling of grains from the top to the bottom of the glass. You cannot predict exactly when any one particular grain will get to the bottom, but you can predict from one time to the next how long the whole pile of sand takes to fall. Once all of the sand has fallen out of the top, the hourglass will no longer keep time unless it is turned over again. Similarly, when all the atoms of the radioactive element are gone, the rock will no longer keep time (unless it receives a new batch of radioactive atoms)...

And all the details follow here: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page 3
 

outhouse

Atheistically
Did the wing start pondering the meaning of life?

The genetic algorithm hones in on the fitness function(s), less drag while maintaining lift etc, no more no less-

The wing could arguably be a far better wing, if it was self aware and thought about how to do it's job better! But unless that was specified as a fitness function, it's never going to happen as an unintended consequence.

Under classical evolution alone, the fitness function is reproduction, nothing more, nothing less.

Word salad.


Nothing but unsubstantiated rhetoric.

That's why you have no credible sources to support a word you wrote. You cannot just make up things as you go and state they are real.
 
Last edited:

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Very true. There is a large similarity between classical physics and classical evolution. Much of what was thought about each was misunderstood.

In classical physics it didn't account for many mechanisms that held together the micro world or high speed or high energy world. It also didn't touch on light or any non-matter particle. So we found the theory of relativity, special relativity and QM to help us understand those.

LIkewise in evolution we knew that things changed over time but did not figure out how. But later we discovered these deeper underlying specific instructions. DNA and the advanced behavior of genetics was the major stepping stone. Later we found out about epigenetics and ways that the environment can shape your DNA. We learned where these changes came from. We learned how they come to be and where they start on these micro levels and work their way back up to observable effects.

So yes you are right that there are deeper underlying specific instructions. What you don't know is that we have already found many. And it wasn't god.

The failure of classical physics didn't technically have to mean God either, one can still argue that all the universal constants, math required to specify such specific results, accidentally blundered into existence for no particular reason- although at this point i think the options are getting a little thin.

But in classical physics were talking about deeper instructions specific to particular end results, great fusion reactors in stars creating specific elements specific to life etc-

I don't think evolution has yet had it's 'ultraviolet catastrophe' the resistance to questioning classical physics is multiplied many times for evolution.

I agree though that epigenetics is interesting, taking some of the burden of pure chance to produce significantly improved designs - though it's still controversial and many here still argue the chance-only version of evolution.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I don't think evolution has yet had it's 'ultraviolet catastrophe' the resistance to questioning classical physics is multiplied many times for evolution.

Word salad.


Nothing but unsubstantiated rhetoric.

That's why you have no credible sources to support a word you wrote. You cannot just make up things as you go and state they are real.
 

dust1n

Zindīq
Prove the earth is 4.5 billions years old without making or using any assumptions. You can't do it.

Science isn't about proof. It's about making theories that comply with all known observations. If the Earth wasn't at least 4 billion years old, chemistry wouldn't make sense.

You don't put very much trust in the science that is used to create the world around you:

"Diagnostic techniques in nuclear medicine use radioactive tracers which emit gamma rays from within the body. These tracers are generally short-lived isotopes linked to chemical compounds which permit specific physiological processes to be scrutinised. They can be given by injection, inhalation or orally. The first type are where single photons are detected by a gamma camera which can view organs from many different angles. The camera builds up an image from the points from which radiation is emitted; this image is enhanced by a computer and viewed by a physician on a monitor for indications of abnormal conditions.

A more recent development is Positron Emission Tomography (PET) which is a more precise and sophisticated technique using isotopes produced in a cyclotron. A positron-emitting radionuclide is introduced, usually by injection, and accumulates in the target tissue. As it decays it emits a positron, which promptly combines with a nearby electron resulting in the simultaneous emission of two identifiable gamma rays in opposite directions. These are detected by a PET camera and give very precise indication of their origin. PET's most important clinical role is in oncology, with fluorine-18 as the tracer, since it has proven to be the most accurate non-invasive method of detecting and evaluating most cancers. It is also well used in cardiac and brain imaging.

New procedures combine PET with computed X-ray tomography (CT) scans to give co-registration of the two images (PETCT), enabling 30% better diagnosis than with traditional gamma camera alone. It is a very powerful and significant tool which provides unique information on a wide variety of diseases from dementia to cardiovascular disease and cancer (oncology)."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/N...ions/Radioisotopes/Radioisotopes-in-Medicine/

Someone needs to let these doctors know that radioactive decay in't as precise as they think it is.
 
Last edited:
The failure of classical physics didn't technically have to mean God either, one can still argue that all the universal constants, math required to specify such specific results, accidentally blundered into existence for no particular reason- although at this point i think the options are getting a little thin.

But in classical physics were talking about deeper instructions specific to particular end results, great fusion reactors in stars creating specific elements specific to life etc-

I don't think evolution has yet had it's 'ultraviolet catastrophe' the resistance to questioning classical physics is multiplied many times for evolution.

I agree though that epigenetics is interesting, taking some of the burden of pure chance to produce significantly improved designs - though it's still controversial and many here still argue the chance-only version of evolution.
I would argue that the amount of uncovering discoveries made in biology through evolution and its deeper functions far outweigh what we have found in physics. This is mostly due to the fact that it is still going on and we can observe it readily. In physics we cannot.

There is no "chance only" evolution.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
You might want to research REAL facts, not the mythology your peddling. Pseudoscience has no credibility.


This is a credible source. Start using credible sources to support your claims or you will be reported


We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

  1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
  2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
  3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
  4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

1. Prove this assumption.
2. Okay.
3. Prove it. These statements are assumptions only.
4. Since God first created...

Got anything solid?
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
You factually do not.

You replace knowledge with mythology. You have not provided a hard facts since you joined this site :rolleyes:

God has provided all the hard facts I need.

Prove what you say instead of just spouting that the whole world believes it.
Prove the Bible is mythology.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Why would a test like that be necessary? It is supported by an amazing amount of evidence, and everything seems to point to evolution being the case. What I'd your alternative theory? Are you able to test it in this way?

You accept theories as fact without testing them first? Is that what science has come to these days?
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
I would argue that the amount of uncovering discoveries made in biology through evolution and its deeper functions far outweigh what we have found in physics. This is mostly due to the fact that it is still going on and we can observe it readily. In physics we cannot.

There is no "chance only" evolution.

I would argue that macro-evolution is unsubstantiated. Finding fossils that appear to be intermediate forms proves nothing. Faulty dating methods prove nothing.

Really, you have observed one kind of creature like a cat evolve into a dog recently? Wow.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
This is something you factually cannot demonstrate at all! or provide any examples of,because they do not exist.

I follow the credible academic road here, and it seems your just making things up as you go which all amount to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You are welcome to provide credible sources to substantiate your point.

You are the one stating facts that are unproven, not me.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
So what hard facts did you need that God provided, and by what manner did you go about testing these hard facts?

God has been tested since creation and found to be righteous and holy, therefore His word is absolutely correct.

I'm not the one stating facts that aren't facts, you guys are.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
God has provided all the hard facts I need.

.

This is something you factually cannot demonstrate at all! or provide any examples of, because they do not exist.

I follow the credible academic road here, and it seems your just making things up as you go which all amount to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You are welcome to provide credible sources to substantiate your point.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
I'm not the one stating facts that aren't facts, you guys are.

This is something you factually cannot demonstrate at all! or provide any examples of,because they do not exist.

I follow the credible academic road here, and it seems your just making things up as you go which all amount to unsubstantiated rhetoric.

You are welcome to provide credible sources to substantiate your point.
 

First Baseman

Retired athlete
Well, that would be dumb, because dogs didn't evolve from cats. Evolutionary theory doesn't posit what nonsense you come up with.

No, I said "like" cats turning into dogs, not that you think that's what happened. So what animal have you seen change into a completely different animal?
 
Top