Evolution has been observed... right?

[Kooky]

Well I’m a YEC, so the narrative I believe is different, as well as I have different reasons for believing what I believe.

What happened to "ni dieu, ni maître" ?

 

[tas8831]

Proof?

Proof the biblical ages are based in reality?

 

[tas8831]

Ah, well Wikipedia said it. I am so convinced!

@Rise uses Wikipedia - and he used it as an authoritative source. Is that OK because he is a creationist?

 

[tas8831]

Evolutionists don’t really have a clue how life began, and will completely divorce themselves from the question as if it has nothing to do with how life “evolved”

That is because the Origin of Life is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution.

As this has been explained to you (and can easily be found in any legitimate resource) probably dozens of times, there are only so many reasonable conclusions that can be drawn about you.

Science cannot prove anything it believes about macro-evolution......is that a good enough foundation to believe all of what it suggests?

Creationists accept macroevolution, even if they are too ignorant to understand this about their own beliefs. Otherwise, the ark sinks.

"One of the most important tenets of the theory forged during the Evolutionary Synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s was that "macroevolutionary" differences among organisms - those that distinguish higher taxa - arise from the accumulation of the same kinds of genetic differences that are found within species."
- "Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Ed." 1998, p. 477. D. Futuyma.

In other words, macroevolution is a pattern produced by multiple rounds of microevolution, not a specific 'event' that needs separate evidence.

And since macroevolution is really a pattern, not an event, your entire premise is moot.

Can you bet your life on it?

And there we have the admission of abject failure - an implicit God-threat.

No evidence? Just imply that your god will smite them.

 

[an anarchist]

What happened to "ni dieu, ni maître" ?

No gods, no masters? My personal beliefs are perhaps split. On a political level, earthly level, I am an anarchist. However on a spiritual level, I believe all Satanism is is simply anarchism. To refuse to submit to God, to be an anarchist on the spiritual level, I’m against this.
If that’s what your referencing anyways, had to look up your French

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Anything there you specifically disagree with, or is generic wellpoisoning all you got?

I would suspect (just between us, don't tell anybody ) that there was no actual reading of the material that could lead to disagreement.

 

[tas8831]

No matter how much time passes or how many tiny changes accumulate, that does not add more information.

Citation please.

 

[Jose Fly]

I would suspect (just between us, don't tell anybody ) that there was no actual reading of the material that could lead to disagreement.

That's why, after I'd link to a paper or something, I'd say to the creationist "Surprise me....actually read the material, take the time to understand it, and come back with an informed reply".

I'd say I was disappointed 99% of the time.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, interesting and very different from the people on here who just say that those who do not understand evolution are stupid. Perhaps th most interesting thing was where you said maybe cells developed an ability to kind of stick together better. Very interesting. A group of cells could very possibly have a better chance to survive than a single cell alone. Makes a lot of sense. But let's go to the next step. They would still be a group of single cell animals sticking together. Each cell is the same. At some point at least one of those cells has to become different. For example one might start to form a foot or an eye or a heart. We have a group of very similar cells. A few may be larger or shaped a little different but they are complete one cell animals in each and every cell. What small change might cause one of them to be completely different to the point that it is now part of a multi cell animal where different cells perform different functions. This does not seem like a small change so there must be a series of small changes that lead to this. What might they be? Surely one cell did not decide it would be happier as a foot and another cell an eye. These are major changes and I have trouble seeing how small changes could cause this.You must admit there is a very big difference between a group of similar single cell animals sticking together and a worm. Can you suggest anything that would make this easier to see? Thanks for some interesting information so far and I hope you can supply more.

I was never a biologist, nor a biology student, but even I can see so many things wrong with your post.

Animals, don’t exist as single cell, there are no such things as “single cell animals”. Even a worm isn’t a “single cell animal”.

Where in the world do you get such absurd idea?

 

[Kooky]

No gods, no masters? My personal beliefs are perhaps split. On a political level, earthly level, I am an anarchist. However on a spiritual level, I believe all Satanism is is simply anarchism. To refuse to submit to God, to be an anarchist on the spiritual level, I’m against this.
If that’s what your referencing anyways, had to look up your French

So you're actually a thearchist.

 

[an anarchist]

So you're actually a thearchist.

Perhaps. I think that the ideal government system was the one recorded in the Bible in the Book of Judges. There was no government at the time, rather, in times of trouble, God would raise up a Judge to deal with the situation. The theme of the book strongly paints this system as an antithesis to the prevalent monarchy system.
Is this type of government system even possible today. I doubt it. Eventually, the Hebrew people rejected the Judge system and demanded God that He anoint them a king, so that He did. So Israel couldn’t even keep that system, while they supposedly had direct contact with the creator God. How much more so today?
Anyways, while I identify as an anarchist, I believe that God should be the authority, making me some sort of supporter of theocracy. I believe no human government should be in place, nor should man have any role in deciding the governor or judge. But this isn’t even possible in our present circumstances. In the future, though? Who knows

 

[gnostic]

I would rather entertain that thought, than to put my future in the hands of science, which can guarantee no future at all.....and which in fact, is itself largely responsible for threatening all life on this planet right now.

Then why are you using electricity?

Electricity is one of those things science have discovered and make use of.

Anything that use electricity in your home, you shouldn’t be using. You shouldn’t be driving, using phones and computers, every electrical appliances, including refrigerators. Hey, even the clothes and shoes you wear today, are not hand-made; the weaving of whatever fabric, the sewing are operated by machines or devices that use electricity.

And electricity required some sorts of fuel and power to operate

But if continue to use these things that require electricity that requiring understanding the science behind them, then isn’t that double standard?

I see less harm trying to understanding biology, like evolution, than you using that required electricity.

What real harm come from understanding genetics involving biodiversity over time?

I think there are more harm com from ignorance, like believing that soil or dust can magically make a human and bringing life from non-living dust. That’s unrealistic fairytale you believe in.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, interesting and very different from the people on here who just say that those who do not understand evolution are stupid. Perhaps th most interesting thing was where you said maybe cells developed an ability to kind of stick together better. Very interesting. A group of cells could very possibly have a better chance to survive than a single cell alone. Makes a lot of sense. But let's go to the next step. They would still be a group of single cell animals sticking together.

Another borderline pedantic quibble, here.

A single cell is not an "animal". Animalia is a genus of multi-cellular lifeforms that were a result of this kind of multi-cellular evolution. The individual cells could be considered no more alive than the cells that make up our bodies now - these things are all alive, but working cohesively to form a smaller part of a larger whole.

It probably doesn't help to think of each individual cell as an individual life form in the same way that, say, you and me are different life forms. This can be a difficult thing to wrap your head around, but your entire body right now is a collection of cells that are no less alive than the earliest eukaryotes that were our ancestors. In a manner of speaking, we are all comprised of a colony of billions of individual cells that cohere together to make a unified whole.

Each cell is the same. At some point at least one of those cells has to become different. For example one might start to form a foot or an eye or a heart. We have a group of very similar cells. A few may be larger or shaped a little different but they are complete one cell animals in each and every cell. What small change might cause one of them to be completely different to the point that it is now part of a multi cell animal where different cells perform different functions. This does not seem like a small change so there must be a series of small changes that lead to this. What might they be?

Well, for starters, as you correctly observed a group of cells sticking together have a better chance to survive than cells on their own. Likewise, cells that develop the ability to share nutrients and proteins with other cells, thus improving the likelihood of successful "cohabitation" of cells, would further improve survivability. Eventually, these cell-groups begin to not only come together, but to actually reproduce as a mass. Once you have established a mass of cells, it further makes sense that this mass (which can now be considered a distinct life form itself) would be at an advantage if certain cells produce certain functions, and so on.

This is literally just off the top of my head. I have no idea if that's how it is theorized to work, but I would assume it is not hugely far off. It may be best to consult some cellular biologists regarding this.

Surely one cell did not decide it would be happier as a foot and another cell an eye. These are major changes and I have trouble seeing how small changes could cause this.

That's skipping about several billion generations. I find it is best not to think of it in terms of "no eye to eye".

I find the best way to wrap my head around this idea is by asking yourself a question, like:

"What does the eye DO?"

Well, the eye is used to examine the environment.

With that questioned answered, ask yourself if the answer also applies to some kind of function in bacteria. Then, instead of imagining the eye as a very specific thing with a very specific function, you allow yourself to see the truth: that the eye is merely a very, very, VERY specialized form of something that even single-celled organisms were capable of. Once you have that framwork in your head, it's extremely easy to imagine how a cell with no eyes, but with, say, a rudimentary ability to detect changes in heat, could evolve into an organism that is capable of detecting light, and from there to an organism that is capable of detecting the direction light is coming from, then to an organism that is capable of detecting the direction and wavelength of that light. When you think of it in these terms, it becomes a lot easier to wrap your head around the extremely unintuitive idea of something like the eye evolving over time.

You must admit there is a very big difference between a group of similar single cell animals sticking together and a worm. Can you suggest anything that would make this easier to see?

Sure. All you nees to do is realize that the main difference is really just scale.

Again, you call cells "animals", but this confusion may be deeper than mere semantics. The cells that make up the worm are not so different from the earliest eukaryotes - it's just a much larger number of them, working in tandem, all with very specific functions. All animals on earth are eukaryotes, comprised of cells.

Thanks for some interesting information so far and I hope you can supply more.

I hope so, too.

I am not a scientist, and I imagine my extrapolations will be utterly torn apart by people far more versed in this stuff than me, but these are simply the ways of thinking about evolution that allowed it to make sense to me as I learned it. I hope it at the very least allows you to feel you have a better grip of the basics as well.

 

[gnostic]

Perhaps. I think that the ideal government system was the one recorded in the Bible in the Book of Judges. There was no government at the time, rather, in times of trouble, God would raise up a Judge to deal with the situation. The theme of the book strongly paints this system as an antithesis to the prevalent monarchy system.
Is this type of government system even possible today. I doubt it. Eventually, the Hebrew people rejected the Judge system and demanded God that He anoint them a king, so that He did. So Israel couldn’t even keep that system, while they supposedly had direct contact with the creator God.

Judges? Really?

It supposedly depict a time that whenever Israelites chose different gods or religions to believe in, they were punished by god by allowing neighboring kingdoms to invade them, and turn them into slaves, and only send a judge to liberate them when they worship god again?

That sounds tyrannical and barbaric and manipulative.

Choosing a religion to follow should be choice of individual, not punished for making such choice.

That’s your idea and ideal of perfect system of government?

 

[gnostic]

@lostwanderingsoul

You need to understand that every bones, tissues, organs, nerves, and so many more, none of them are made of only one cell.

Even one foot are made of multiple parts, and you can externally only see skin and toenails. Underneath that are bones, muscles, connective tissues, blood vessels and nerves. And every single ones of them, comprise of multiple cells. Even a single drop of blood, would contain more than one red blood cell.

Every cells, often joined together that have specific physiological function.

Bacteria and archea are lifeforms that’s are alive as single cell (unicellular). But these cells are different to cells in animals, plants and fungi. Animals, plants and fungi are multicellular organisms.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I was never a biologist, nor a biology student, but even I can see so many things wrong with your post.

Animals, don’t exist as single cell, there are no such things as “single cell animals”. Even a worm isn’t a “single cell animal”.

Where in the world do you get such absurd idea?

Um... Unicellular organism - Wikipedia There are a LOT of single celled animals.

 

[gnostic]

Um... Unicellular organism - Wikipedia There are a LOT of single celled animals.

I don't think "animal" is the right word for these unicellular organisms. Eventually, biologists would settle different name for them.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Anything there you specifically disagree with, or is generic wellpoisoning all you got?

I disagree that Wikipedia is a legitimate source.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is because the Origin of Life is NOT part of the Theory of Evolution.

Funny how Darwin actually used it in his book title, but evolution actually says nothing about origins... Hmmm. How can you have origins of the species when you don't know how life started?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I was never a biologist, nor a biology student, but even I can see so many things wrong with your post.

Animals, don’t exist as single cell, there are no such things as “single cell animals”. Even a worm isn’t a “single cell animal”.

Where in the world do you get such absurd idea?

Germs.viruses, bacteria are all simgle cell animals. Better study a little harder.