Evolution My ToE

[ecco]

Since Jesus verified Scripture was from God including His words that is not an issue.

A few humans write stories about a preacher named Jesus.
Some of the writers (although they were not there) quote Jesus saying the OT is all true and we know this because the NT is inspired by God.

The is a level below hearsay. Yet you believe it. Astounding.

 

[ecco]

Don't be like crazy Nancy.

Crazy Nancy? Which Nancy are you referring to?

 

[ecco]

Perhaps you should stop projecting your beliefs on the poor flatworms making them your kin?

Are you referring to yourself as a flatworm now?

 

[dad]

Crazy Nancy? Which Nancy are you referring to?

Any one that may have a few bolts loose.

 

[dad]

Are you referring to yourself as a flatworm now?

No.

 

[nPeace]

This is a poorly formed question. Evolution is a process that is constantly going on. So we could say that evolution only "happened" once. It is still happening. Life does not stop evolving. There have been many millions if not billions of species over the history of the Earth. There is no way to catalog where and when the all arose.

Thank you.

 

[nPeace]

Yep, and to me, a population evolving multiple new life history behaviors and traits would negate that claim. You seem to disagree, which led me to wonder what you meant by the term "complex".


See above.


I agree. Do you?


I would agree, and note that it renders your claim irrelevant. If there's no way to objectively determine whether one organism is more or less "complex" than another, then the claim "there is no evidence of simple organism to complex" is meaningless.


No.


That is incorrect. If "replication of the entire process" is required before we can reach conclusions about how things happened, we would rarely, if ever, be able to say much of anything about past events. Do we need to recreate the entire Civil War before we can say anything about what happened? Do we need to recreate a murder before we can convict a person for committing it? Do we need to recreate all my German ancestors having sex and giving birth before we can conclude that I am of German ancestry?

Of course not.


I'm fine with that.


Before I comment further, are you referring to the work you cited in THIS POST? If so, I think you've greatly misunderstood the material. Perhaps the first thing to focus on would be to understand that the terms "New World" and "Old World" refer to the Western Hemisphere (N. and S. America) and the collective of Africa, Asia, and Europe, respectively. IOW, the terms are not describing ages, but are describing locations.

Please explain what I have greatly misunderstood, and could you please answer the questions while you are at it.

A stick insect fossil in a layer with dinosaur fossils dating before 66 million years will automatically indicate the fossil must be older than 66 million years - which was done.
If other studies say that is wrong, and the stick insect fossil is younger - many millions of years after 66 million years ago, then how did it get buried in a layer with dinosaur fossils?

If the insect fossil is much younger, then why are the other fossils in that strata older, and not considered younger?
Does it have anything to do with the phylogenetic tree?

 

[nPeace]

I've seen no scientifically validated "facts".

You sound like me. Only when talking about God, you need to explain what you mean by scientifically validated "facts".
Speaking of LUCA, I definitely agree. I see no scientifically validated "facts". Actually there are just hypotheticals in support of the idea.

But, yes, this is effectively hijacking a thread on another topic. I do thank you for the conversation. It has been entertaining. when I get pointed, I do not mean any ill will towards you, and I take note that you do not jump to character assassinations, either. That is very refreshing and I thank you. I wish more conversations were like yours.

I don't think you have bad intentions.
Thanks for clarifying though, and thanks for the commendation.
Perhaps that's because you haven't gotten on my "bad side"

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please explain what I have greatly misunderstood, and could you please answer the questions while you are at it.

A stick insect fossil in a layer with dinosaur fossils dating before 66 million years will automatically indicate the fossil must be older than 66 million years - which was done.
If other studies say that is wrong, and the stick insect fossil is younger - many millions of years after 66 million years ago, then how did it get buried in a layer with dinosaur fossils?

If the insect fossil is much younger, then why are the other fossils in that strata older, and not considered younger?
Does it have anything to do with the phylogenetic tree?

No, this is a misunderstanding on your part of how one dates with fossils.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sound like me. Only when talking about God, you need to explain what you mean by scientifically validated "facts".
Speaking of LUCA, I definitely agree. I see no scientifically validated "facts". Actually there are just hypotheticals in support of the idea.


I don't think you have bad intentions.
Thanks for clarifying though, and thanks for the commendation.
Perhaps that's because you haven't gotten on my "bad side"

It is strongly supported by scientific evidence. Which is pretty hard to beat.

 

[Jose Fly]

Please explain what I have greatly misunderstood, and could you please answer the questions while you are at it.

I'll try my best. The first thing that would help the most would be if you could let me know if the work you're referring to is from your earlier post in this thread. I don't want to assume that it is, only to have it turn out that you've been talking about something else.

Once we clear that up, I'll get to the questions.

 

[ecco]

Any one that may have a few bolts loose.

So, you're a Fundamentalist Creationist and a Trump Sheeple. That's not surprising.

 

[dad]

So, you're a Fundamentalist Creationist and a Trump Sheeple. That's not surprising.

Let's review. The theory of evolution of life says that man came from beasts and all life from 'simpler' lifeforms like bacteria, worms, bananas etc etc. Basically it is a fruity and animalistic debasing religion that degrades and insults God's created kind of man, made in His Own image! There is no evidence whatsoever, and all that has been offered here is a belief that DNA was the same with no evidence, and that the observed trait of adapting/evolving was responsible for all the amazing variety of life on earth, including man!!

If I were to take that logic, the observed growth of fingernails means that they would reach the moon in a few dozen centuries! Or observed rainfall in a downpour in Texas means that the world will be underwater in a few years! etc etc etc. Ridiculous.

 

[Milton Platt]

Please explain what I have greatly misunderstood, and could you please answer the questions while you are at it.

A stick insect fossil in a layer with dinosaur fossils dating before 66 million years will automatically indicate the fossil must be older than 66 million years - which was done.
If other studies say that is wrong, and the stick insect fossil is younger - many millions of years after 66 million years ago, then how did it get buried in a layer with dinosaur fossils?

If the insect fossil is much younger, then why are the other fossils in that strata older, and not considered younger?
Does it have anything to do with the phylogenetic tree?

Can you link to a scientific paper or article which brings this up? I can see how life forms from different eras could be mixed sometimes. Crusts can be uplifted and eroded and exposed for newer life forms to be deposited upon them and then reburied with more sediment or volcanic ash. But I would be interested in exploring this particular instance, rather than just speculating.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I'm not going to argue with you on this.

Because you can't. Please don't claim people are committing ad hominem fallacies until you understand what an ad hominem fallacy is.

A person may be unable to see that they simply believe something to be true, and think that anyone who does not believe as they do, does not understand.
It's not that the person does not understand. It's just that both persons are looking through two different lens, but one thinks his lens is clear, so the other guy must be ignorant.

Except they have reason to believe you are ignorant, and have explained said reasons for doing so.

That's not an ad hominem.

I
There is no need to keep repeating that someone does not understand.

Not unless someone demonstrates that they do understand.

If one thinks the person does not understand, simply demonstrate it. If one can't, then try cleaning the lens. It may just be a matter of thinking that one is right - which may not be the case.

But that's what they are trying to do. Those paragraphs you quoted are attempting to explain things to you.

However, repeating to everyone who does not agree with one's belief, and doing so in almost every post, is ad hominem - an intent to belittle. I say address the post and stop whining.

You're wrong. Nothing you quoted was an ad hominem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lots.

Nada. Zilch. Nihil. Zero.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You..or the bible.. who should we believe...hmmm

You should never just believe anyone or anything. Not even yourself.

But given those two as only options and being forced to choose, I'll go with @Subduction Zone any day of the week, tbh.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm not going to argue with you on this.
A person may be unable to see that they simply believe something to be true, and think that anyone who does not believe as they do, does not understand.
It's not that the person does not understand. It's just that both persons are looking through two different lens, but one thinks his lens is clear, so the other guy must be ignorant.

There is no need to keep repeating that someone does not understand. If one thinks the person does not understand, simply demonstrate it. If one can't, then try cleaning the lens. It may just be a matter of thinking that one is right - which may not be the case.

However, repeating to everyone who does not agree with one's belief, and doing so in almost every post, is ad hominem - an intent to belittle. I say address the post and stop whining.

Perhaps take a step back here.

Assuming you are not a flat-earther, think about flat earthers and how that discussion would go.
Do you really think there would be ANYTHING you could tell them, to demonstrate to them that the earth isn't flat?

And is the problem then in your "lens", or is the problem rather in their willfull ignorance and stubborness?

This, just to show you that repeatedly failing to make someone comprehend something properly, isn't necessarily because of "your lens" or you not explaining it well.

It might in fact very well be that the person you are talking to is just closed minded and invested in a priori dogmatic beliefs, with a pcyhological need to hold on to those beliefs no matter what.

And that will very likely be the case when the subject matter consists of something that enjoys WIDE consensus in science, while that person is arguing against it from a religious point of view. Just like flat earthers. Or YECs. Or cdesign proponentsists.

Surely you understand that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Que? Seriously?
I don't know.

How many times did evolution occur, and how many species, and when exactly in history?

Evolution is an on-going process that every single species that ever existed, still exists or will exist in the future, is subject to.

Your question makes no sense in context of what evolution is really all about.

Another hint that you have no real grasp of the subject.
Someone with basic understanding of what evolution is, would never ask such a question. Not even retorically. Because it makes no sense. It's like asking about the taste "blue" or "red".

 

[SkepticThinker]

You..or the bible.. who should we believe...hmmm

Whichever one can demonstrate the veracity of their claims.