Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[YoursTrue]

And that's not the end of the world.

Science means 'the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

It is based on 'empirical evidence and facts'.



In abiogenesis the only thing missing is the chemistry behind the proccess which is not of a big deal since it is very logical that life could have originated deep in the waters influnced by many possible natural ways.
It has many possibilities , but in one of them is certainly the answer.

I don't belive that we will make life again , but i belive that we will discover a way to explain the chemistry behind it.For example, If the chemistry can be dependent on other external sources such as the powers in this universe,why not.We don't know when , where and what will be discovered.That's what is good about science,you don't invent it , you discover it.

I say this because i have talked with someone who explained to me how hard is to do it.They are fighting with time , which is not a good ally in their case.
You should do a little research about it.

Now let's move to something else

So the issue that many have with you here is the way you speak things about science and what science serves to.

This is what you do , you ask some questions that by default put science out of its domain.And we who learn science know to speak about science only in its domain , because in that way we know what is verifiable.
So basically it's just like a football match , but we start with 1:0 for you and we ask ourselfs why is that?

I think that everybody wants your answer on why do you reject to be corrected?

Don't forget that by your line of questioning you tell us where the conversation is leading to.

"But There are things that science simply cannot explain" - this is what you said.

This is what i would say :

"There are things that science cannot explain"

Try to find the difference on how they differ in meaning.

When i read what you wrote as you would say it , i feel as you are saying that is some bad thing in the first place.

No bad blood , just an advice

I realize you may speak of science "in its domain," but I do have a different perspective about that. Because if I considered all science valid I imagine I'd agree with you in reference to its various perspectives and ponderings. Thank you though for your response.

 

[Dimi95]

Of course some scientists do feel that humanity is on the verge of great disaster. Not little disasters as some might think of them such as wars and illness, but total disaster. I do take vaccines when necessary.

What kind of disaster?
There are many theories out there and many of them are false.
We have a way of proving what is false.Do you want to learn it?

So i think that you need more of a spiritual answer to keep up with what i am saying.

There are so many people who think that Christ is coming back.Yes he is , but when you pray to him.
You won't see anymore Christ in this world as he once was.Many claimed here to know what Christ means,but belive me , they would not speak in one open debate and be exposed to public.

Christ is comming everytime one prays to him.It is written everywhere in the books of the New Testament.Want a hint?
And we have many Christians who testify to it,worldwide.
Otherwise why John 20:29?
"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

One part of This verse tells something - that we all have our judgment day.But some think that all of us will be there on the same day.Well eventually yes , but not all at once

But tell me if you see anything that might be more probable , even in that sense.

And even Christians from the West have wild ideas about many doctrines.When someone asks me for example , what is Hell , i really don't know what to answer except that is some state of mind that we don't know much about.
We don't define it as what it is.
We all expirience what might be hell sometimes as we are able to describe it within everyday reality.

Hell might be for example when you feel pain.
Pain can be manifested in many ways, not just physicall.

I say this because i think that you should eliminate some ideas,at least the crazy and scary ones which include all kind of movie material.

 

[Dimi95]

I realize you may speak of science "in its domain," but I do have a different perspective about that. Because if I considered all science valid I imagine I'd agree with you in reference to its various perspectives and ponderings. Thank you though for your response.

We are here to help you to find the pseudo ones..

Just to let you know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've tried this before. I've listed dozens and dozens of sudden observed changes in life. It's like water off a duck's back to those who believe in Darwin so it's your turn to list any change in any life of any sort that is gradual. Don't try that tired old refrain of "Evolution" because it is interpretation and because it is the assumption that led to this conclusion that is being scrutinized here. Don't assume Evolution exists and tell me one change in any life or species that is observed or shown by experiment to not be sudden.

So.... no examples.

Of course you can't do it. Without the assumption that individuals are all the same but some are fitter than others there can be no "Theory of Evolution".

10 human individuals get infected with the exact same virus.
6 barely notice it.
4 require medical attention
Of those 4, 2 die as a result of the infection

Yet, they are all "equally fit"?

Your assumption is even self contradictory just like the definitions which say every individual is the same species as its parents but they still "speciate" anyway.

That isn't self contradictory at all. It would self-contradictory if change wasn't gradual but "sudden" instead ;-)

I gave you the example of evolution of language before. Same thing.
Every individual ever raised spoke the same language as the people that raised them and their peers.
No Latin speaking mother has ever raised a Spanish speaking child.

Yet 2000 years ago, the ancestors of Spanish speaking folks all spoke Latin.

Nobody has "invented" Spanish.
Latin instead gradually changed into Spanish.
And every individual in that lineage, spoke the same language as its parents and children.

You still haven't addressed agriculture either.

What about it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not sure what you mean. But there are things that science simply cannot explain. That includes the idea of abiogenesis leading to what is considered by many, evolution.

Everything science can explain today, it couldn't explain at some point in the past.

If you think this is any kind of argument in favor of anything in particular, then you are just engaging in a ginormous argument from ignorance.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?
It is said and I do not deny it that all living organisms on Earth have genes made of the same four bases: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G). These bases are used to form double-stranded DNA molecules that store genetic information. The genetic code is written in the DNA and RNA molecules, and it encodes instructions for how to reproduce and operate the organism.
So these things themselves seem very, very complex. Do scientists know exactly how the DNA structure came about?

It is a very very complex subject. But there are all sorts of resources online where this very complex subject is explained in detail. If you are genuinely interested in knowing the answers, why would you be seeking the answer here on a religious forums site? Seems rather disingenuous to me.

 

[blü 2]

So far I see no real justification for the concept. From dah beginning...

The alternative explanation is magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of reality.

Magic doesn't work in reality, but it's not short of fans.

 

[cladking]

your exact words were Every observed change is sudden.

AND THE STATEMENT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT ABOUT CHANGE IN SPECIES.

And even if you were only talking about living things changes are not sudden.

But you can't provide a single example of a gradual change!

 

[cladking]

Examples?

People who have their bodies folded spindled and mutilated often have severe neurological, psychological, and other problems.

So an individual who has suffered a stroke that left the peach centers damaged no longer has a mind?

Excellent question!

Aphasia would be a good thing for me to study. Of course the problem is that there are many types of aphasia and I mostly need people with a problem in the broccas area.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

AND THE STATEMENT WAS IN RESPONSE TO A STATEMENT ABOUT CHANGE IN SPECIES.



But you can't provide a single example of a gradual change!

Every mutation that is passed on to off spring = gradual change.

 

[cladking]

So.... no examples.

AGAIN; I've listed dozens of these changes dozens of times so it's your turn to list just one single gradual change observed in individuals, species, or life. But if you say "evolution" you'll need to support your contention with an experiment.

10 human individuals get infected with the exact same virus.
6 barely notice it.
4 require medical attention
Of those 4, 2 die as a result of the infection

Yet, they are all "equally fit"?

Unless you can predict in advance which two die you have no argument but merely a BELIEF that they were less fit.

The two that died might have otherwise been the most capable, able, and robust two individuals of the entire species and each with a dozen healthy children. Disease, accidents, and predators don't care which individuals they cut down. The 1918 flu killed young and healthy more than old and senile. Lions chase young or sick gazelles not because they taste better or are unfit. They chase them because they are easier to catch. Lions don't study Darwin to survive.

Darwin put the lion before the gazelle. His assumptions are as wrong today as when he invented them from thin air in the 19th century.

Nature doesn't waste resources making individuals to sicken and die.

I gave you the example of evolution of language before. Same thing.
Every individual ever raised spoke the same language as the people that raised them and their peers.
No Latin speaking mother has ever raised a Spanish speaking child.

I don't recall this but it is an excellent example. The problem though is all your definitions and assumptions are wrong.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are eight billion different languages the simple fact is ALL modern languages are changing at a very rapid rate. Even in a single lifetime this change can be seen. The patterns, rules and convention used by the parents is distinct from that of the off-spring but this is more noticeable between children and grandparents usually. Just as we rarely notice we each have a different understanding of every utterance this is much more pronounced across generations.

You simply choose not to see this.

What about it?

Just as lions don't study Darwin neither did the inventors of agriculture.

You need to think about this and see how these facts apply to the real mechanisms of change in species.

 

[cladking]

Every mutation that is passed on to off spring = gradual change.

This is sudden change by definition!!!!

How can a mutation be gradual when every individual either has it or does not and it arose suddenly?

 

[cladking]

Since this seems to be a scientific answer about genes. Can someone explain how the genes came about?

Nobody can explain how life came about. Certainly they can show that chemicals can come together in unique ways that might lead to life and hence have a possible answer but there are numerous flaws in such thinking. Chief among them is the improbability of genes evolving and the total inability to even define "consciousness" which at least many species mustta been blessed with. Assuming mind arises from brain is no more relevant to true science than assuming species arise from the most fit or assuming you don't need to understand individuality or behavior to understand how species change over time.

Real life, real consciousness, and real change in species is millions of orders of magnitude more complex that any biologist can even imagine. In their haste to find answers they simply made assumptions and proved those.

This isn't to say life couldn't have arisen through natural processes merely that there is no evidence it did and the actual evidence suggests other means; namely that life is far too complex to arise (or have arisen) naturally and instead comes from other sources. You can't have nice clean primordial soup because it will be contaminated with life eating its constituents and excreting in it.

 

[cladking]

You can't have nice clean primordial soup because it will be contaminated with life eating its constituents and excreting in it.

Each of these species eating the soup will then "evolve" in "predictable" ways dependent on their specific genes, their food sources, and their interactions with other life. Their complex genes are complex because their ancestors date back so far into the past.

Each individual strives to survive and prosper and are equally fit because of their genes which were passed down through countless eons.

We know almost nothing about anything at all. It seems like we do. Reductionistic science generates exploding numbers of specialties.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

AGAIN; I've listed dozens of these changes dozens of times so it's your turn to list just one single gradual change observed in individuals, species, or life. But if you say "evolution" you'll need to support your contention with an experiment.

I've listed dozens of these changes dozens of times also.
We can both play that silly game.

Unless you can predict in advance which two die you have no argument but merely a BELIEF that they were less fit.

If they were all "equally fit", then they would all react in the same way (all die, all barely notice or all require some medical attention).

The two that died might have otherwise been the most capable, able, and robust two individuals of the entire species and each with a dozen healthy children.

Ah, I see. So the problem actually is that you don't know what "fit" means in evolutionary biology....
"Fitness" in evolutionary biology concerns how well adapted one is in context of the environment one finds itself in. And this environment constantly changes.
So when a new virus comes on the scene, it might change the parameters. Those that were previously "more fit" might no longer be because of this change in selection pressure.

Disease, accidents, and predators don't care which individuals they cut down. The 1918 flu killed young and healthy more than old and senile. Lions chase young or sick gazelles not because they taste better or are unfit. They chase them because they are easier to catch. Lions don't study Darwin to survive.

Yeah, you are only confirming further that you don't actually understand the concept of fitness in context of evolutionary biology.
You might want to read up...

I don't recall this but it is an excellent example. The problem though is all your definitions and assumptions are wrong.

They are not. They are perfectly analogous.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are eight billion different languages

Errr... no, there aren't.

the simple fact is ALL modern languages are changing at a very rapid rate. Even in a single lifetime this change can be seen. The patterns, rules and convention used by the parents is distinct from that of the off-spring

So you don't speak the same language as your parents or children?

but this is more noticeable between children and grandparents usually.

Ow? So you are saying that the more generations exist between 2 individuals, the more the accumulated changes are apparent?
How about that.... it almost sounds as if you agree that languages gradually change by the accumulation of small changes over time. Almost.

Tell me, did a latin speaking mother ever raise a spanish speaking child?

Just as we rarely notice we each have a different understanding of every utterance this is much more pronounced across generations.

Yeah, that's how it goes with gradual change over generations. The more generations that pass, the more apparent the accumulated changes become.
Funny how you agree while insisting you don't................

Tell me, what happens if you add more and more and more generations?
Would at some point a language from generation 0 have changed so much by generation 1000 that individuals of generation 0 will no longer be able to communicated with individuals from generation 1000? As in: we would say it's a different language?
Like how latin turned into spanish?
Yet, did not every individual in that lineage from latin to spanish speak the same language as its parents and children?




Again, hilarious how you agree while insisting you don't.

You simply choose not to see this.

It is exactly what I see and what I'm saying.
Gradual change over time. Accumulation of small changes every generation leading to big changes over many generations.

Just as lions don't study Darwin neither did the inventors of agriculture.

????
You might want to explain what point you think you are making here.

You need to think about this and see how these facts apply to the real mechanisms of change in species.

I have no clue since your point is downright bizar.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This is sudden change by definition!!!!

Que??

How can a mutation be gradual when every individual either has it or does not and it arose suddenly?

Are you being serious here?

I don't even know how to respond to this.

You have ~55 mutations in your DNA. That's ~55 things in your DNA that you didn't get from mommy or daddy. Are you a different species?
You will pass those on to your children. They will add their own mutations. So now, your children have ~110 things in their DNA which weren't present in your parents.
And so it goes on and accumulates.
That's the gradual bit: the accumulation of small changes.

Just like how languages change over time.


You yourself described gradualism by recognizing how difference becomes more apparent once you add more generations in between.
Why? Because they accumulated. Changes occur and get passed on to the next generation and so on. The accumulate. This is the very definition of gradual change.

 

[Dimi95]

This is sudden change by definition!!!!

No it is not.

I will try to explain why

How can a mutation be gradual when every individual either has it or does not and it arose suddenly?

Really ?
Latest studies show that Cancers are caused by environmental rather than genetic factors.

Tobacco use causes many types of cancer.
And there is nothing sudden about that.

So by definition the next offspring has the possibility to have it.
The use of tobacco is external factor.
Ask someone who found out that they have it in their genes if it is sudden.

We have analysis which say that 20 % of all cancers are caused by smoking tobacco.I just don't understand why would nobody check that in the first place.

It cannot be sudden if i know that smoking is not good.That means that i have to take care of what i do in life and try not to pass anything further.

Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[cladking]

I've listed dozens of these changes dozens of times also.
We can both play that silly game.

Then you must agree with me!

If they were all "equally fit", then they would all react in the same way (all die, all barely notice or all require some medical attention).

NO!!!!
Every single individual is different. There are no two individuals alike. What is good for one kills another. Different things are good and bad for every single individual. There is no "species" with more or less fit individuals. There are only individuals.

The assumption that individuals which survive are more fit simply changes the definition of "individual" and puts the cart before the horse.

 

[cladking]

Correct me if i am wrong.

Death is sudden.

An individual with cancer can reproduce.

Cancer normally kills within five years. This is sudden.

It cannot be sudden if i know that smoking is not good.

?

 

[cladking]

Ow? So you are saying that the more generations exist between 2 individuals, the more the accumulated changes are apparent?
How about that.... it almost sounds as if you agree that languages gradually change by the accumulation of small changes over time. Almost.

Tell me, did a latin speaking mother ever raise a spanish speaking child?

There are no two identical things in reality and you want to claim something so ephemeral and abstract as "Latin" is identical across generations???

Seriously?

At EXACTLY what point does a caterpillar turn into a butterfly? I'm guessing you can define it down to much less than a nanosecond even though a caterpillar is designed from birth to be a butterfly.

EVERY SINGLE HUMAN EVER BORN is a product of his time and place. And this includes the language he speaks. Just like all life we are distinct.

Yeah, that's how it goes with gradual change over generations. The more generations that pass, the more apparent the accumulated changes become.
Funny how you agree while insisting you don't................

There is no "gradual change" over millions of years. All change is a random walk that may or may not reflect changes in the habitat until a real change suddenly occurs over a few generations. There are no gradual changes that result in new species even though off spring are always a little different species than their parents just neither parent nor off spring can't step into the same river twice.

Real change, massive change, comes to "species" suddenly.