Evolution is a fact?!

[Subduction Zone]

Can't have the Theory without another theory of how did it start.

No, there is no need for that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's almost like a lawyer might say, ok, here's what the defendant says happened. And report it correctly.

Does this even make any sense?

We do not need to know what the defendant ate for breakfast to know if he was guilty or not. The evidence will show (hopefully) guilt or innocence regardless of what the defendant ate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Can't have the Theory without another theory of how did it start.

Wrong.

Life exists and we can study it.
How first life came into existence doesn't change anything about how life works.

However it came into existence - it evolved once it existed.

The way life works (reproduction with modification), makes biological evolution inevitable

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can figure the theory out but not believe it.

Perhaps, but you won't know until you try. ;-)

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

It is both tiresome and entertaining to educate others on the same things over and over and over again. I hope that if we keep educating, it will sink in.

Let's begin.

When will Charles Darwin begin his proven path of evolution from non-living to living? "Evolution is a fact", he says.

The religious denier conflates Evolution with Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose. Evolution is the study of how life evolves. Darwin, himself, avoided discussions and topics regarding how life began. Also, the origin of life has nothing to do with resurrection. The "challenge" you put forth has no merit.

So, Darwin exists and you can ask your common sense when Darwin will start the path he has proven [through works of his followers] from the inanimate state to the living.

Again, the Theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. The origin of life had to come before evolution; but it is, nonetheless, a different scientific discipline.

Well, yes, Darwin said that the Lord Jesus has created the first life (if this is how you can interpret his vague phrase: "the first cell is chained to the throne of God"), but his followers developed the spirit of Darwin's teachings to the point that the "progressive" humankind understood:

If you read poems and letters I wrote when I was a teenager, I would be labelled "Christian". However, today, I am atheist. What I believed way back then has little bearing on what I believe now.

Darwin, also, began as a theist. Many changes and struggles in his life, including (but not limited to) his scientific investigations, changed his spiritual belief system. It moved to either Atheist or Deist throughout his lifetime. Human beings are dyanamic and rarely ever stagnate. It is not unsurprising that a person's belief system changes over time.

1. people are still animals (one of the species of apes; however, this is self-contradiction: there was no evolution if humans are still animals), They said earlier that man descended from an ape. Now they say differently: man is still an ape. But then there is no evolution if we are still animals.

It is clear that you do not understand evolution. One of the rules of evolution is, to put it simply, "we never outgrow our ancestry".

Our ancestors were animals; thus we are animals, only a different kind of animal.
Our ancestors were mammals; thus we are mammals, only a different kind of mammal.
Our ancestors were primates; thus we are primates, only a different kind of primate.
We are humans; thus those that follow us will also be human; only a different kind of human.

If a species arose that did outgrow its ancestry, the theory of evolution would fold in on itself.

2. black lives must be mercilessly oppressed,

Darwin never stated nor suggested such a thing. There are those who used Darwin's discoveries in a faulty, failed attempt to justify racism. But these same people also used the Bible to do the same.

3. schizophrenics and beggars must be castrated,

Eugenics was a terrible part of our history, but that is not Darwin's doing. Bigots will use anything at their disposal to justify their atrocious beliefs. But the fault of that falls on the bigots; not on the "anything" they had at their disposal.

4. unwanted babies must be killed already in the womb

How do you figure the discussion of Abortion has anything to do with the ethics of abortion? You've drawn a line between two things that I can't fathom how this was done. I can't follow your train of thought here; it is, in my perception, utterly and wholly disjointed.

5. wildlife came without God's miracle from the non-living matter (and therefore life on Mars was in the distant past).

Again, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis; though the first had to come before the other, but they remain different fields of study.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Being, who would know all, knows that God exists. Thus, among all knowledge is the knowledge of God.

You really should invest in some logic and critical thinking courses.

 

[tas8831]

Darwin wrote his theory of evolution before the discovery of DNA. He postulated the theory of natural selection, which seemed rational or based on cause and affect. The bigger and stronger would win.

This is not at all what Darwin postulated. You can begin here.

The modern rendition of evolution, is now based on a random change on the DNA.

Random as in non-predictable and with regard to fitness.
But do go on.

Dice, cards and jackpots, which also use statistical arguments where around at the time of Darwin, and Darwin never went that way. Darwin was not into gambling, booze, dance hall girls and stolen merchandise. Darwin is being misrepresented.

By you, as far as I can tell.

This has been my beef with evolution. The modern version depends on the same math that is behind gambling games like cards, invented by man, that are not natural.

Ah, there's your problem. You don't understand evolution - modern or otherwise.

How can you make a natural selection

I honestly cannot tell if this is an elaborate joke or not....

, using the math behind manmade objects? Darwin never said this but rather saw an order in nature.

Playing cards all have the same mass, size and material, yet they have 52 subjective variations plus jokers. Any two decks can be different. This alternate reality only exist because of man. There is nothing in the natural universe that is like that. Nature is quantized, with each quanta representing differences in known physical parameters. It is not about difference in subjective coloration. Nature does not depend on subjective criteria like printed pictures; 100% facade. This is why it is called gaming the system.

Darwin's name is used to add prestige to this, but he never endorsed a gamble model of evolution, run in science casinos. Any gambling addict, even on science, will see himself winning the jackpot, before he enters the casino. This is reinforced by comps, where even if you lose; dos not pan out as planned, you get a bonus; increased odds. This type of unnatural science harms the brain.

Wow....

You literally do not seem to understand a single thing about this.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

The bigger and stronger would win.

Small correction: Those most fit for their environment would "win", if you consider continued procreation as "winning".

The survivors of the initial Chicxulub Impact would have included larger predators and smaller mammals. The larger predators struggled to find enough sustenance in their very different environment. The smaller mammals, on the other hand, could easily avoid these large predators through borrowing, etc. The larger predators died out within a generation, leaving the land to the smaller, weaker mammals.

In that different environment, the smaller mammals were more fit for their environment and thus flourished while the bigger, stronger predators died out, being less fit for that environment.

 

[YoursTrue]

This is not at all what Darwin postulated. You can begin here.


Random as in non-predictable and with regard to fitness.
But do go on.

By you, as far as I can tell.

Ah, there's your problem. You don't understand evolution - modern or otherwise.

I honestly cannot tell if this is an elaborate joke or not....


Wow....

You literally do not seem to understand a single thing about this.

Ok, I was just wondering about what is deemed to be truth or fact. So without diverting too much, what do "flat-earthers" believe? Maybe someone can start a new thread because I don't know how to. I mean we're talking about fact or truth, in essence.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans exist first.

State the subliminal non thinking human heard voices AI designer human by machine effect. Affects being informed. As a human.

Scientific creator inventor confession.

Human made aware. Human choices. Human science wrong.

Says we de evolved as a thinker. As consciousness. As a preacher. A teacher. A theist. A natural just human being.

Depending on group human status itself humans in agreement to claim I own preaching by science conditions

The human group itself claims right or wrong. Yet you are just humans living as humans.

That status mentally is cult coercion. No matter what human status you give yourself as a title in a human group. Coercion itself sciences. Sophist mentality.

Being honest and human. We are equal without false intelligence.

Archaeology. Man said in geology and archaeology I will prove life lived before. Was destroyed as we remember naturally by subliminal feedback and proved it.

Atmospheric heavenly father voice heard speaking a science teaching.

Relative for humans.

Advice you changed God the earth you got destroyed. De evolved mutated. Then re evolved healed. Evolution. Self a human.

Evolution of self says consciousness is not creation status.

Reason everything created exists formed. Is natural. Always was and nothing is new.

So knowing that status evolution is just about human form only. A human self thinking for self as a self. The consciousness.

Father said the origins of human science ended on a contorted blackened earth carbon stone body.

I know the story real as a historic earth planet fed back past image held in space gas imagery transmitted that advice in vision when brain prickled irradiated. I thought I would die in gas burning fallout attack. Yet I saw visions also.

Human science was origin visionary.

When the origin of science the collider theory destroyed all life.

Theory given back by man AI memories. Temple pyramid sciences plus nuclear mass dust conversions. Memory of destruction returned was identified. Visionary.

The pyramid temple gold production philosophy is not any collider theory was only mutated life gained reasoning.. After ice age. Science was practiced.

Reason ice places water X mass back in melt. We heal in water oxygenated heavens mass. To no longer express a mutation we could not have owned the mutation originally.

Humans have proved miraculous healing of body cells and mutations as human evidence for human advice.

Science today is theorising only for sciences beginnings. Not including ice age or the actual old science philosophy. Just the science status origins that had destroyed all life on earth.

Reason. Space thesis is not claiming natural status of God earth mass now.

Science origins was a space thesis not after the ice age thesis.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is both tiresome and entertaining to educate others on the same things over and over and over again. I hope that if we keep educating, it will sink in.

Let's begin.



The religious denier conflates Evolution with Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose. Evolution is the study of how life evolves. Darwin, himself, avoided discussions and topics regarding how life began. Also, the origin of life has nothing to do with resurrection. The "challenge" you put forth has no merit.



Again, the Theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. The origin of life had to come before evolution; but it is, nonetheless, a different scientific discipline.



If you read poems and letters I wrote when I was a teenager, I would be labelled "Christian". However, today, I am atheist. What I believed way back then has little bearing on what I believe now.

Darwin, also, began as a theist. Many changes and struggles in his life, including (but not limited to) his scientific investigations, changed his spiritual belief system. It moved to either Atheist or Deist throughout his lifetime. Human beings are dyanamic and rarely ever stagnate. It is not unsurprising that a person's belief system changes over time.



It is clear that you do not understand evolution. One of the rules of evolution is, to put it simply, "we never outgrow our ancestry".

Our ancestors were animals; thus we are animals, only a different kind of animal.
Our ancestors were mammals; thus we are mammals, only a different kind of mammal.
Our ancestors were primates; thus we are primates, only a different kind of primate.
We are humans; thus those that follow us will also be human; only a different kind of human.

If a species arose that did outgrow its ancestry, the theory of evolution would fold in on itself.



Darwin never stated nor suggested such a thing. There are those who used Darwin's discoveries in a faulty, failed attempt to justify racism. But these same people also used the Bible to do the same.



Eugenics was a terrible part of our history, but that is not Darwin's doing. Bigots will use anything at their disposal to justify their atrocious beliefs. But the fault of that falls on the bigots; not on the "anything" they had at their disposal.



How do you figure the discussion of Abortion has anything to do with the ethics of abortion? You've drawn a line between two things that I can't fathom how this was done. I can't follow your train of thought here; it is, in my perception, utterly and wholly disjointed.



Again, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis; though the first had to come before the other, but they remain different fields of study.

Evolution has to include how life came about. From nonlife. In fact, the limits are the same. In other words, logic based on what is thought of as circumstantial evidence and then calling it truth, fact, or real.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution has to include how life came about. From nonlife. In fact, the limits are the same. In other words, logic based on what is thought of as circumstantial evidence and then calling it truth, fact, or real.

Nope, Evolution works no matter what form of abiogenesis there was. Whether natural, planted by aliens, or magically poofed into existence by a magical being.

And there is no scientific law against abiogenesis.

It is so funny that creationists always claim "there are limits" but can never ever show any evidence for this claim.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is both tiresome and entertaining to educate others on the same things over and over and over again. I hope that if we keep educating, it will sink in.

Let's begin.



The religious denier conflates Evolution with Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose. Evolution is the study of how life evolves. Darwin, himself, avoided discussions and topics regarding how life began. Also, the origin of life has nothing to do with resurrection. The "challenge" you put forth has no merit.



Again, the Theory of evolution does not address the origin of life. The origin of life had to come before evolution; but it is, nonetheless, a different scientific discipline.



If you read poems and letters I wrote when I was a teenager, I would be labelled "Christian". However, today, I am atheist. What I believed way back then has little bearing on what I believe now.

Darwin, also, began as a theist. Many changes and struggles in his life, including (but not limited to) his scientific investigations, changed his spiritual belief system. It moved to either Atheist or Deist throughout his lifetime. Human beings are dyanamic and rarely ever stagnate. It is not unsurprising that a person's belief system changes over time.



It is clear that you do not understand evolution. One of the rules of evolution is, to put it simply, "we never outgrow our ancestry".

Our ancestors were animals; thus we are animals, only a different kind of animal.
Our ancestors were mammals; thus we are mammals, only a different kind of mammal.
Our ancestors were primates; thus we are primates, only a different kind of primate.
We are humans; thus those that follow us will also be human; only a different kind of human.

If a species arose that did outgrow its ancestry, the theory of evolution would fold in on itself.



Darwin never stated nor suggested such a thing. There are those who used Darwin's discoveries in a faulty, failed attempt to justify racism. But these same people also used the Bible to do the same.



Eugenics was a terrible part of our history, but that is not Darwin's doing. Bigots will use anything at their disposal to justify their atrocious beliefs. But the fault of that falls on the bigots; not on the "anything" they had at their disposal.



How do you figure the discussion of Abortion has anything to do with the ethics of abortion? You've drawn a line between two things that I can't fathom how this was done. I can't follow your train of thought here; it is, in my perception, utterly and wholly disjointed.



Again, evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis; though the first had to come before the other, but they remain different fields of study.

Bonobos and ants do not, to the best of my knowledge, wonder or theorize where they came from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bonobos and ants do not, to the best of my knowledge, wonder or theorize where they came from.

So what?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Evolution has to include how life came about. From nonlife. In fact, the limits are the same. In other words, logic based on what is thought of as circumstantial evidence and then calling it truth, fact, or real.

You don't get to decide what scientific disciplines goes where. There is plenty more than "circumstantial evidence" to substantiate the Theory of Evolution. In fact, science goes far beyond "circumstantial evidence" to meet the criteria for becoming a "theory" and for substantiating itself as fact. As with all theories, it must: Provide explanatory power; Provide predictive power; and it must be testable and repeatable. The theory of evolution has met all of these criteria, and continues to do so.

Perhaps, if you would stop trying to attack things you don't understand (Evolution, Science, etc) and study a bit, you would learn something.

Start by watching the two video series I posted. My bet is, you won't; it's too scary to challenge your worldview. I bet you will continue to lash out on things you know nothing about, all the while thrusting your fingers in your ears and going "nananananananaaa!"

Bonobos and ants do not, to the best of my knowledge, wonder or theorize where they came from.

We're not bonobos and we're not ants, so what difference does that make? Is there a point here?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can figure the theory out but not believe it.

And then you have a theory which you believe but it does not have a head or a tail, Adam from mud?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Bonobos and ants do not, to the best of my knowledge, wonder or theorize where they came from.

Neither did our ancestors most likely, several hundred thousand years ago.

 

[tas8831]

Ok, I was just wondering about what is deemed to be truth or fact. So without diverting too much, what do "flat-earthers" believe? Maybe someone can start a new thread because I don't know how to. I mean we're talking about fact or truth, in essence.

Yeah, start a new thread on that.

 

[tas8831]

Bonobos and ants do not, to the best of my knowledge, wonder or theorize where they came from.

And?
Lots of humans do not do that. I get the feeling that you think evolution dictates that all living things should be able to do these things? Or something? Hard to tell.

 

[tas8831]

Evolution has to include how life came about.

Does Germ Theory have to include how germs came about? Does the Universal Theory of Gravitation have to include how gravity came about?