Evolution has been observed... right?

[Dan From Smithville]

Emotional?
No.
Logical?
Yes.

Very emotional and with no apparent functional knowledge of logic. You keep trying and don't take this failure to heart.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And this is why I stopped reading your posts on other threads. You don't actually say anything most of the time.

I get that you do not understand the science I write about and that the best you can do is to make up some personal attack in response. It isn't unexpected.

Evolution does not happen at random. Clearly you do not understand that and this is the best you can muster in response.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does your knowledge of the natural world really tell you that over a million years a population of one cell creatures can become fish and birds and insects? That certainly seems like something that has no evidence outside of the claims of science. Your definition of magic.

Not in a million years. The evidence shows that this occurred over billions of years. It isn't magic. They didn't just poof into fish, birds and insects. The evidence exists. Denying it doesn't make it disappear.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Only it's not equivalent at all.
One is artificial and one is random.
There's too many other causes to allow natural selection to bring about the variety of life we see. Plus it doesn't explain human self consciousness.

Selection is not random. Show us it is random. You do understand the word selection right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't. But comparing it to human intervention is dishonest.

You don't understand it and the comparison of artificial selection to natural selection is honest and valid.

As usual, you have no argument.

 

[Valjean]

It seems that the difference between science and magic is a question of time. If a population of animals changed in a very short time, it must be magic. But if the same changes took millions of years, then it was science. Science says all living things evolved from a single cell in some primordial swamp millions of years ago. That is what sounds like magic.

No. Science is an investigative mechanism; a process. There's a technique to it; steps in a process. Magic is just effect without cause. The difference isn't quantitative, or temporal.

 

[Valjean]

Does your knowledge of the natural world really tell you that over a million years a population of one cell creatures can become fish and birds and insects? That certainly seems like something that has no evidence outside of the claims of science. Your definition of magic.

There is evidence. Without evidence no claim would be made. Somehow you're either unaware of the evidence or are consciously ignoring it.

 

[Valjean]

I don't. But comparing it to human intervention is dishonest.

If you don't understand it, how is it you're judging it dishonest? Selection leading to changes is a well known process. The process works the same way no matter who or what does the selection.

 

[Valjean]

Emotional?
No.
Logical?
Yes.

Logical? Show your work. Logic doesn't mean reason.

Only it's not equivalent at all.
One is artificial and one is random.
There's too many other causes to allow natural selection to bring about the variety of life we see. Plus it doesn't explain human self consciousness.

How many times do we have to point out that natural selection's not random? It selects.What other causes of life's variety are you talking about? Science would be interested.
Self consciousness? What does this have to do with it?

You keep repeating all these objections to the ToE, even after your factual errors are pointed out. You just repeat them. But what alternative do you propose? Magic doesn't "explain" anything at all.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I mean who's counting? A million here, a billion there. Does anything in nature show that a population of single cell animals can evolve into other animals?

Yes, something does. Does anything in religion show that organisms pop into existence by magic?

You can certainly take a population of birds and put half in one environment and half in another environment. Over time they will adjust to there environment by growing longer beaks or something. Or you can taks a population of bears and put half in a warm environment and hald in a cold environment. Over time the ones in a col environment will grow heavier fur. If this is "evolution" then I am 100% in agreement with evolution. But science has never seen evidence that you can put dogs in two different environments and get cats.

Nor does science claim to. But the changes you acknowledge do accumulate, and, given time, can accumulate into whole different creatures from the prototype. Does this not seem reasonable? Do you not understand accumulation and its ramifications?
Science has a great deal of evidence for organisms evolving into quite different organisms, yet you deny or ignore this evidence and remain incredulous.

Or that one cell animals over a long time become complex animals.If this is "evolution" then it is just guess work with no science to support it. Or do you have solid evidence of it?

But if there were no science to support it, it wouldn't be a theory, would it? A scientific theory is not guess work. You're ignorance of the underlying facts and processes doesn't change this.

 

[Valjean]

Seriously? But you think a bunch of single cell animals became fish and birds and every other type of animals. Where is the evidence? One day there were nothing but single cell animals and millions of years later there were other animals. So they must have evolved because no one can think of any other way. Is that proof?

The evidence is right in front of you, in thousands of biology textbooks, journal articles, &c. Denying them doesn't make them go away. The mechanisms have been described and observed. You're denial doesn't change this.
And you have yet to propose a credible alternative theory.

 

[ratiocinator]

Does your knowledge of the natural world really tell you that over a million years a population of one cell creatures can become fish and birds and insects?

Yes.

That certainly seems like something that has no evidence outside of the claims of science.

Lots and lots of very good and compelling evidence.

 

[ratiocinator]

Only it's not equivalent at all.
One is artificial and one is random.

Every time you refer to natural selection as random, you're showing your ignorance. Why don't you stop and learn something?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Has anyone ever seen a one celled animal turn into any other animal?

Yes. Literally every time any living thing reproduces.

 

[rational experiences]

Human claim is a fact that we own and use common sense.

Sense shared by the common or most of us.

Science proves it is not of common sense.

Knows it isn't and claims indoctrinated group purpose by human choice. Their stance common denominator.

Logic stone owns its own heavens.

Stone formed by cooling evolution in space which was not seven days.

Logic.

Men said gods law was a mountain.

Sense says a volcano lost its peak ∆ released its gases by an opening o.

The conscious first human thinking by observation and pretend. How a heaven was owned by its creator planet earth.

Pretend as no human owned presence consciousness or form. In that story.

So first theory is just stories. To pretend means is not actual is envisioning a past or thinking by want of conditions now. When now or the moment never owned pretend.

Rational humans stating first science observations. Common sense.

Why basic common sense is very basic and is correct thinking.

Then we face all the frustrations of human want greed bullying coercion involving threats murder power money trade and group status.

Every condition to be the human destroyer not by truth or common sense but by greed persuasion and threats.

Hence gods planet laws in human stated law was determined to be broken.

So human law had to contend with criminality in the sciences. A basic human review about spiritual human versus our perpetrators.

Once Family who do not live respect nor honour human parents rights. As a scientist. Just human.

O one small cell.an ovary. One creator a man sperm. Same for most self present life forms. Life continuing in reality. Sex. Not God.

Pretty basic human warnings.

We state earths gases are evolved as they cooled. Stone no longer owned origin. Space did. Basic sense stone gave gas to space.

Ownership status.

Science said space as a body owned the presence of just a gas. Yet space also owned the presence of stone.

Said purposely so the heavens are not the creator. Stone another form in space.

It was basic information so coercive word use could not coerce basic understanding by using concepts of inferred higher intelligence.

Which is persuasive.

As knowledge to force change natural bodies is only the knowledge how to destroy.

If science said I could evolve change monkeys sex as a natural act into gaining from sperm and monkey ovary a human baby then you would review evil in person.

As devolution or mutation involves all species not being their evolved species today as current and present.

Science infers a monkey is a human life time shifted.

Force a monkey out of its one owned holy life position it would become a mutated body. As monkeys owns sex as a gain monkey baby.

Common sense basic.

The status science does not own control or manipulate in experiments what they quantified by choice to be science. To force unnatural changes upon a natural living self present body.

Reason. They chose act and force change as a human by machination invention. No God making the changes.

So if we quote a song by Jewel. God kills children with our very own hands.

Is a human summation since when is God a human scientist?

If an evolutionist said God gases changed conditions to evolve heal form. All gases exist. They are abundant only in mass. Mass changing forces pressure changes involving hot and cold gases with water.

Was never a step by step book thesis how God evolved life on earth. It is just a story. A story told by humans.

If a human pretends they are the God then it is just a human scientist claiming he invented created everything as he believes his consciousness is God itself.

Why he pretended he invented creation in space and coerced you to believe he invented creation itself. As he does.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I get that you do not understand the science I write about and that the best you can do is to make up some personal attack in response. It isn't unexpected.

Evolution does not happen at random. Clearly you do not understand that and this is the best you can muster in response.

Case in point.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It selects.

" It" doesn't exist.

 

[ratiocinator]

" It" doesn't exist.

Wow; the environment doesn't exist!

 

[metis]

Does anything in nature show that a population of single cell animals can evolve into other animals?

Yes, but let me first link you to the fact that all life forms evolve: Speciation - Wikipedia

OK, that just involves single-cell bacterium or viruses that have mutated to the point of forming new "kids" to use your word for it. But let's take a look at another source, namely the fossil record:
Multicellularity has evolved independently at least 25 times in eukaryotes, and also in some prokaryotes, like cyanobacteria, myxobacteria, actinomycetes, Magnetoglobus multicellularis or Methanosarcina. However, complex multicellular organisms evolved only in six eukaryotic groups: animals, fungi, brown algae, red algae, green algae, and land plants. It evolved repeatedly for Chloroplastida (green algae and land plants), once or twice for animals, once for brown algae, three times in the fungi (chytrids, ascomycetes and basidiomycetes) and perhaps several times for slime molds and red algae. The first evidence of multicellularity is from cyanobacteria-like organisms that lived 3–3.5 billion years ago.[7] To reproduce, true multicellular organisms must solve the problem of regenerating a whole organism from germ cells (i.e., sperm and egg cells), an issue that is studied in evolutionary developmental biology. Animals have evolved a considerable diversity of cell types in a multicellular body (100–150 different cell types), compared with 10–20 in plants and fungi... -- Multicellular organism - Wikipedia.

IOW, If we go back far enough, no fossil, or any other kind of evidence, indicates that multicellular life-forms existed. Then suddenly we begin to see them. So, where did they come from? Did God pull off some more creations after the Creation accounts say that He stopped at the end of the 6th day?

Life forms evolve, so my recommendation is that it's best to accept the reality of both what the scientific evidence and the scriptures actually do say. To ignore both probably isn't the best thing to do.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

" It" doesn't exist.

Environments don't exist?