All the evidence indicates that our life spans are increasing and a greater number of people have a higher quality of life than ever before. Not everyone, but on average much longer and better.
-
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!
Evolution has been observed... right?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Magical transformation of one species to another or magic beans is not evolution. No one studying biology expects to ever see that.
Per my cartoon (not real) dermatologist, Dr. Lancelot (who lances a lot), pugs had longer noses. Pick-N-Save, in Boyle Heights, where Lancy works, periodically runs a half-off sale on nose jobs (so they all got nose jobs).
When the lord was passing out noses, W. C. Fields said that he thought the Lord said "roses" so he asked for a big red one.
Some distinguish adaptation from mutation to another species. Yet, it is obvious, to most, that evolution is real, and mutation indicates how it occurs. DNA proves evolution, and DNA evidence is accepted as prove in courts of law.
Some scientists believe in God, and some of them believe in creation (not evolution). But, many creationists have no education (and no clue) in biology, yet, they vigorously argue against evolution. That is tantamount to lying (saying that something is not true when they don't have sufficient background to make that determination).
Flu mutates every year, which is why we need to get a different immunization shot each year.
COVID has mutated at least 4 times (alpha, beta, gamma, and delta types). So, evolution has occurred within a year, as we were watching the changes.
Mutation of COVID (and other viruses) also occured as it jumped species (for example, from bats to humans). Usually, that causes a rapid evolution of DNA while the virus adapts to the new host. This is what we observed when COVID jumped from humans to minks in Denmark. But, this is not what we observed in the first many COVID patients in Wuhan, China. This implies (a stronger word than infers) that COVID already infected human cells, and the first observed patients were infected long after COVID mutated. This gives credence to the idea that the bat corona virus spliced with SARS in the Wuhan Institute of Virology was the (lab-made) origin of the current COVID pandemic.
In other words, in 2015, according to a research paper written by the Wuhan Institute of Virology (source: Wikipedia article about the Wuhan Institute of Virology), they gene spliced SARS and bat corona virus (from a cave 93 miles from the Wuhan Institute). Somehow, that virus got out of the lab (96% of the DNA of this gene-spliced virus is identical to the pandemic virus), and infected humans. China quarantined its own citizens, but had allowed the pandemic to spread (via its Wuhan airport) to other nations--intentionally infecting them.
An article, in Vanity Fair, about possible lab-made origin of the current COVID pandemic discusses this DNA adaptation. The article is virtually the same as my previous posts. The US government is cracking down on internet posts on COVID, restricting free speech (Constitutionally guaranteed) because they claim that internet chat is dangerous to the treatment of COVID. That is, public safety takes precedence over free speech, so we are not allowed to suggest that a lab in China created and released COVID. Jan Pesaki, White House Press Secretary said that the Biden administration has suggested the removal of tens of thousands of articles (blogs or posts) about COVID.
Perhaps pug noses prove evolution, but the process seems much wider and deeper than that. It touches our lives and alters our perceptions about religion and how we came to be here.
Life span might be a result of better technology of health care and more access to health care. Also, perhaps internet information allows people to google their ailments and realize how serious they are (so they seek medical attention).
In addition to living longer, it appears that kids are getting bigger each generation. The height change seems to be in the United States. When Nixon visited China, he stooped so he wouldn't appear so large. Now there are huge kids who dwarf their parents. Could this be from chemicals to fatten cows? Something in the water or air? Maybe humans are evolving as dinosaurs did (becoming huge)? Will my parrot turn into a parrosaurus and learn to say "here kitty, kitty" in a deep booming voice?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
That's just selective breeding. Not evolution. It doesn't happen randomly.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
I don’t think proponents of evolution say it happens randomly at all? Rather, it happens naturally
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
By random mutations. Think about it. Selection by humans being neccasary doesn't support the ToE which is supposed to just happen by itself.
an anarchist
Your local loco.
doesn’t natural selection take care of the rest I.e. survival of the fittest?
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
No, selective breeding isn't adaptation.
It’s called “evolution” by those who want us to believe what is not proven science, but more based on educated guessing.
You can’t suggest something, for which you have no proof, and call it genuine “science”. It’s a theory....an unproven...unprovable, theory. That is a very uncomfortable truth. Evolution of the macro kind is not a fact. It is an impressive edifice with no foundations......there is nothing to support its first premise, but it is fed to the masses as a “scientific” theory. The word “scientific” here is supposed to add weight to the fact that a theory in science can be passed off as a proven fact. It is far from that.
Its still a gecko.....it will always be a gecko, no matter how many adaptations occur.....it remains true to its “kind” or “family”. Show me where this is not the case.
When was an equine not an equine? When was a canine not a canine? Or a feline not a feline? “Families” of creatures remain within their families no matter how many varieties of their own species are produced. Whether they can interbreed or not is irrelevant. They instinctively seek an appropriate mate.....to perpetuate their species or to create new varieties within that species.
Did the Peppered Moth become something other than a Peppered Moth that changed color in adapting to a change in the color of the trees they were situated in? It is presented as an example of “evolution”......but it is an example of “adaptation”. That is not even close to “evolution” as science suggests it must have taken place from that microscopic beginning. You cannot suggest that “if a little is good, a lot must be better” with nothing to substantiate it.
Ability to adapt to changing circumstances is programmed into every living thing as an unsupervised survival mechanism, going on for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years before scientists came along to give it their own interpretation.
It’s an absolutely brilliant mechanism, isn’t it? IMV, All credit to the Creator.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
No, you couldn't. Evolution is about survival advantage.
AlexanderG
Active Member
It does. The mutations happen randomly, producing a variety of traits in the individuals of a population. But then the environment (or humans) select certain individuals based on the survival advantages of their traits (or whatever traits humans prefer) to reproduce for the next generation. After a few generations of biased selection, those traits are much more prevalent in the population. That is evolution.
AlexanderG
Active Member
It’s called “evolution” by those who want us to believe what is not proven science, but more based on educated guessing.
You can’t suggest something, for which you have no proof, and call it genuine “science”. It’s a theory....an unproven...unprovable, theory. That is a very uncomfortable truth. Evolution of the macro kind is not a fact. It is an impressive edifice with no foundations......there is nothing to support its first premise, but it is fed to the masses as a “scientific” theory. The word “scientific” here is supposed to add weight to the fact that a theory in science can be passed off as a proven fact. It is far from that.
Its still a gecko.....it will always be a gecko, no matter how many adaptations occur.....it remains true to its “kind” or “family”. Show me where this is not the case.
When was an equine not an equine? When was a canine not a canine? Or a feline not a feline? “Families” of creatures remain within their families no matter how many varieties of their own species are produced. Whether they can interbreed or not is irrelevant. They instinctively seek an appropriate mate.....to perpetuate their species or to create new varieties within that species.
Did the Peppered Moth become something other than a Peppered Moth that changed color in adapting to a change in the color of the trees they were situated in? It is presented as an example of “evolution”......but it is an example of “adaptation”. That is not even close to “evolution” as science suggests it must have taken place from that microscopic beginning. You cannot suggest that “if a little is good, a lot must be better” with nothing to substantiate it.
Ability to adapt to changing circumstances is programmed into every living thing as an unsupervised survival mechanism, going on for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years before scientists came along to give it their own interpretation.
It’s an absolutely brilliant mechanism, isn’t it? IMV, All credit to the Creator.
You sound like you've only ever read literature prepared by Christian apologists with the goal of miseducating you about biology. You're wrong on every level. You don't seem to know what a scientific theory is, or what evolution is defined as, or anything about biology. I wouldn't even know where to begin with you. However, if you value your beliefs being true more than your beliefs letting you fit in with your JW social community, then I'd recommend you read some books about biology written by actual biologists, describing information accepted by the consensus of experts in their field.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Oh, Jesus...
Since you obviously didn't pay attention the first few thousands times this has been explained (willful ignorance is helluva drug) you probably won't this time, but for everyone else's sake:
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
It’s called “evolution” by those who want us to believe what is not proven science, but more based on educated guessing.
You can’t suggest something, for which you have no proof, and call it genuine “science”. It’s a theory....an unproven...unprovable, theory. That is a very uncomfortable truth. Evolution of the macro kind is not a fact. It is an impressive edifice with no foundations......there is nothing to support its first premise, but it is fed to the masses as a “scientific” theory. The word “scientific” here is supposed to add weight to the fact that a theory in science can be passed off as a proven fact. It is far from that.
Its still a gecko.....it will always be a gecko, no matter how many adaptations occur.....it remains true to its “kind” or “family”. Show me where this is not the case.
When was an equine not an equine? When was a canine not a canine? Or a feline not a feline? “Families” of creatures remain within their families no matter how many varieties of their own species are produced. Whether they can interbreed or not is irrelevant. They instinctively seek an appropriate mate.....to perpetuate their species or to create new varieties within that species.
Did the Peppered Moth become something other than a Peppered Moth that changed color in adapting to a change in the color of the trees they were situated in? It is presented as an example of “evolution”......but it is an example of “adaptation”. That is not even close to “evolution” as science suggests it must have taken place from that microscopic beginning. You cannot suggest that “if a little is good, a lot must be better” with nothing to substantiate it.
Ability to adapt to changing circumstances is programmed into every living thing as an unsupervised survival mechanism, going on for hundreds of thousands or even millions of years before scientists came along to give it their own interpretation.
It’s an absolutely brilliant mechanism, isn’t it? IMV, All credit to the Creator.
It is proven without doubt in several different ways that evolution
And all your straw men based on deliberate ignorance do nothing to make the evidence go away.
It is a scientific theory, I don't think you know what that actually means.
We can't "show" you that over the internet. What you need to do is get an education.
However, if "kind" or "family" must always remain true -- where were the geckos in 65 million BC, and why are there no longer pterodactyls? Where the chickens in 65 million BC, and why are there no more tyrannosaurs?
For somebody who can make such amazingly categorical statements as you do, these should be trivial questions -- so I wait with bated breath.
@AlexanderG & @Father Heathen.....lets see what this cited Wiki explanation begins with.....
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]”
When we read what is written without the blinkers on, what does this actually say to me...?
1) “A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.”
So the “theory of evolution” is just one aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified. That is complete rubbish when applied to science’s first premise. There is NO WAY to confirm that the supposed first life, (a microscopic, single celled organism that magically appeared in some kind of cosmic soup, way back in the dim dark past) can replicate itself over time to transform into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on earth. How can this be repeatedly tested and verified, except in the imaginations of those trying to promote their pet theory?
2)This repeated testing is done....”in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.”
OK....tell me how the “scientific method” is applied to something that happened before humans were even thought of? Who developed “the scientific method” and the “accepted protocols of observation”......Wasn’t it scientists? Aren’t these scientists all trained in the same institutions to accept what they are taught about the evolution of life on this planet? What have they really observed?.....macro-evolution or adaptation? Calling them the same thing and suggesting that they can test their first premise (the foundations of the whole theory) is nonsense. That is impossible.
3) “In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]”
So what is “abductive reasoning”?
“Examples of abductive reasoning include a doctor making a diagnosis based on test results and a jury using evidence to pass judgment on a case: in both scenarios, there is not a 100% guarantee of correctness—just the best guess based on the available evidence.”
Reasoning and Inference | Boundless Psychology
‘Best guesses’ are not really science are they? Add bias to that ‘best guess’ and you have a recipe for fantasy masquerading as fact. Scientific opinions are not facts, no matter who holds them.
“Established scientific theories” (formulated by those who apply best guesses and pass them off as scientific fact) are “subjected to rigorous scrutiny” by whom? By those who formulated the theories in the first place and who would use their own opinions as the measuring line for every outcome of such scrutiny.
The fox is guarding the hen house.
You can believe all of it if you wish.....I remain unconvinced that the “science” as applied to the theory of evolution, is not just a cleverly presented illusion, designed to maintain a theory that science has no way to prove that it ever happened.
“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.[1][2] In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]”
When we read what is written without the blinkers on, what does this actually say to me...?
1) “A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results.”
So the “theory of evolution” is just one aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified. That is complete rubbish when applied to science’s first premise. There is NO WAY to confirm that the supposed first life, (a microscopic, single celled organism that magically appeared in some kind of cosmic soup, way back in the dim dark past) can replicate itself over time to transform into all the lifeforms that have ever existed on earth. How can this be repeatedly tested and verified, except in the imaginations of those trying to promote their pet theory?
2)This repeated testing is done....”in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.”
OK....tell me how the “scientific method” is applied to something that happened before humans were even thought of? Who developed “the scientific method” and the “accepted protocols of observation”......Wasn’t it scientists? Aren’t these scientists all trained in the same institutions to accept what they are taught about the evolution of life on this planet? What have they really observed?.....macro-evolution or adaptation? Calling them the same thing and suggesting that they can test their first premise (the foundations of the whole theory) is nonsense. That is impossible.
3) “In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]”
So what is “abductive reasoning”?
“Examples of abductive reasoning include a doctor making a diagnosis based on test results and a jury using evidence to pass judgment on a case: in both scenarios, there is not a 100% guarantee of correctness—just the best guess based on the available evidence.”
Reasoning and Inference | Boundless Psychology
‘Best guesses’ are not really science are they? Add bias to that ‘best guess’ and you have a recipe for fantasy masquerading as fact. Scientific opinions are not facts, no matter who holds them.
“Established scientific theories” (formulated by those who apply best guesses and pass them off as scientific fact) are “subjected to rigorous scrutiny” by whom? By those who formulated the theories in the first place and who would use their own opinions as the measuring line for every outcome of such scrutiny.
The fox is guarding the hen house.
You can believe all of it if you wish.....I remain unconvinced that the “science” as applied to the theory of evolution, is not just a cleverly presented illusion, designed to maintain a theory that science has no way to prove that it ever happened.
Education....or indoctrination? That word doesn’t just apply to religion you know....
The Bible explains that quite well IMO. Since I do not hold to YEC beliefs, I see creation more as a process over very long creative periods. There is no way that the creative “days” were 24 hour periods. The Bible allows for this.
If each creative period allotted in a progressive process of creation, was hundreds of thousands or even millions of years long, that allows God to be a “Creator” rather than a “magician”.
If all lifeforms were individually created, observed and tweaked over the time he allotted to accomplish the finished product, this is mirrored by how humans (reflecting their Maker) accomplish their own creativity. Some things make the final cut and some don’t. Some may have accomplished a purpose for a specific time and were allowed to die out. We have as many valid suggestions as science does. There are no restrictions about this in the biblical account. How could Moses know that the earth itself was originally a “formless and waste” planet, completely covered with water.....and uninhabitable until the Creator chose to prepare it, and to plant the first living things here. How could he know that life began in the oceans?...and that creation follows the order that science basically supports?
Don’t turn blue on my account EH.....you are free to believe whatever you wish, just as am I. There are valid reasons for my skepticism regarding evolution, just as you believe you have valid reasons for yours with regard to religion. We are all shaped by something or someone.
I believe that it will all come out in the wash.......we will all know one day, as the world is under unprecedented assault, why we are here and who is responsible for the existence of life and why we ourselves are being tweaked in the midst of all this chaos, for our future role here. The Bible explains it all for me....science science explains nothing.
Viker
Your beloved eccentric Auntie Cristal
Mine, too. A witch wouldn't have been very welcome back then.