Evolution My ToE

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is an observed fact: mammals give birth to live young; birds, reptiles, fish, insects, etc. lay eggs that hatch to produce young of the same kind; plants produce seeds that grow into plants of the same kind; fungi produce spores that develop into new fungi; bacteria reproduce by fission, and so on. The only alternative to living things coming from pre-existing life-forms of the same kind is spontaneous generation from non-living matter, which has never been observed and which was effectively disproved during the 19th century.

When reading your posts, it sometimes makes me think that you are talking to us through time from 18560 or something, being completely oblivious concerning all biological advances of the past 170 years or so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have been saying that for a while now -- that it (usually) takes two humans, male and female, to produce offspring. They just don't pop up by themselves. And so far, they (humans) don't give birth to chimpanzees. Or birds.

Why would humans give birth to birds or chimps???
Are you somehow under the impression that there should be instances of such if evolution is true?????

 

[McBell]

Why would humans give birth to birds or chimps???
Are you somehow under the impression that there should be instances of such if evolution is true?????

Every once in a while he lets slip his "Pokemon" evolution...

 

[SkepticThinker]

It's not a matter of not understanding it. I see no hard "proof" of the theories. For instance, you can say evolution exists, but I see no proof that one form morphs (evolves) into another as living time goes on. I mean that according to mankind's observations while alive and *writing* it down as it happened, for the past several thousand years, there is no evidence that any form evolved into another. And of course, yes, the idea that writing of the humankind has only been in existence for the past few thousand years is another reason for me to believe the positive value of the Bible and not what scientists say in contrast to it.
I used to believe that fishes developed legs, became aphibians, and when was in school I didn't question these things. I accepted them as taught because -- that's what it seemed to be according to the teachers. And now I know that there are those that will say it happened in a very long period of time, therefore -- no evolving can be directly observed, but yes, frankly, I don't go along with that idea any more, because it's all conjecture based on fossils which really does not "prove" evolution at all. It PROVES that there are skelatons or fossils. Skelatons do not prove evolution.

It definitely is.
As you demonstrate in the rest of the paragraph you typed right after saying that.
Creatures don't "morph" into other creatures or give birth to creatures that are different from themselves. You know this. Or at least, you should by now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been saying that for a while now -- that it (usually) takes two humans, male and female, to produce offspring. They just don't pop up by themselves. And so far, they (humans) don't give birth to chimpanzees. Or birds.

EVOLUTION DOESN'T SAY THAT THEY SHOULD.
In fact, if that were to happen, evolution would be falsified.
As I've already pointed out, several times now.

 

[dad]

You have missed the point that I made in post 4290, that the different 'kinds' of animals and plants (e.g. whales, dinosaurs, mammals, apes, coelacanths, and flowering plants) appear sequentially in the fossil record, not all at once. Since living things always come from previous life-forms, rather than by spontaneous generations, the first fossils belonging to a particular 'kind' must have been descended (over a long period) from previous living things (ancestors) of a different 'kind'; in other words, they must have evolved from a different 'kind' of living thing..

Yes, the sequence of death involving the tiny percentage of animals that could leave remains in the former nature is clear in the fossil record. However it does not represent the sequence of human life or life on earth. It represents only the sequence of death of the very small percentage of animals that could leave remains!
Nor did the created first kinds come from any previous life. Nor did it take a long time and it is not known that evolution processes worked only via reproduction. So adaptations could have happened to living creatures.
Fir your fantasy scenario to work, you need a same nature in the distant past on earth. Without supporting that, the claims all fall like dominoes.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes, the sequence of death involving the tiny percentage of animals that could leave remains in the former nature is clear in the fossil record. However it does not represent the sequence of human life or life on earth. It represents only the sequence of death of the very small percentage of animals that could leave remains!
Nor did the created first kinds come from any previous life. Nor did it take a long time and it is not known that evolution processes worked only via reproduction. So adaptations could have happened to living creatures.
Fir your fantasy scenario to work, you need a same nature in the distant past on earth. Without supporting that, the claims all fall like dominoes.

Of course it represents the sequence of life on earth. Those same animals that died, also LIVED.

 

[dad]

Of course it represents the sequence of life on earth. Those same animals that died, also LIVED.

Yes they did. Was this leading to a point?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes they did. Was this leading to a point?

Read your own post again and perhaps you'll see why I pointed that out to you.

 

[dad]

Read your own post again and perhaps you'll see why I pointed that out to you.

The sequence of death of those animals that could fossilize involves them having lived first, and then dying. Not sure what the tricky part here is supposed to be for you?

 

[SkepticThinker]

The sequence of death of those animals that could fossilize involves them having lived first, and then dying. Not sure what the tricky part here is supposed to be for you?

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

YOU said, "Yes, the sequence of death involving the tiny percentage of animals that could leave remains in the former nature is clear in the fossil record. However it does not represent the sequence of human life or life on earth. It represents only the sequence of death of the very small percentage of animals that could leave remains!"

I was pointing out that fossil remains of creatures doesn't just tell us that they died. Rather, it tells us that they lived, thus providing a sequence of LIFE on earth, which you said it doesn't show us. Well, it does.

Examining fossil remains tells us that these creatures lived, which gives us all kinds of other information about what kinds of creatures they were.
You seem to be under the impression that all we can tell from fossil evidence is that things died. We can tell a whole lot more than that.

 

[dad]

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

YOU said, "Yes, the sequence of death involving the tiny percentage of animals that could leave remains in the former nature is clear in the fossil record. However it does not represent the sequence of human life or life on earth. It represents only the sequence of death of the very small percentage of animals that could leave remains!"

I was pointing out that fossil remains of creatures doesn't just tell us that they died. Rather, it tells us that they lived, thus providing a sequence of LIFE on earth, which you said it doesn't show us. Well, it does.

Yes it sure does.The fossil record is irrelevant though, in determining what the array of creatures that lived on earth. It is only a record of a teensy tiny percent of what lived and does not include either man or MOST animals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The sequence of fossil evidence does not reveal the ex nihilo creation of living things. The very fact that it is a sequence refutes creation as described in the Bible.

The demonstration of age of the fossils and the earth also stands, since nothing has been presented to contradict the dating evidence. Claims that physics was different in the past remain claims without substance.

There is no evidence of magical adaptation of individuals. Zero. Zip. Nada.

A horse did not jump in the sea and magically become a fish and then grow feathers and fly away.

Those sorts of deluded fantasies about magic do not have even a thread of connection to anything in reality and are the attempts at fabrication by fantacist mentalities that can neither explain reality nor live with it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Okay, I'll spell it out for you.

YOU said, "Yes, the sequence of death involving the tiny percentage of animals that could leave remains in the former nature is clear in the fossil record. However it does not represent the sequence of human life or life on earth. It represents only the sequence of death of the very small percentage of animals that could leave remains!"

I was pointing out that fossil remains of creatures doesn't just tell us that they died. Rather, it tells us that they lived, thus providing a sequence of LIFE on earth, which you said it doesn't show us. Well, it does.

Examining fossil remains tells us that these creatures lived, which gives us all kinds of other information about what kinds of creatures they were.
You seem to be under the impression that all we can tell from fossil evidence is that things died. We can tell a whole lot more than that.

It is a creationist desire to exist in whatever gaps they can eek out for themselves. As those gaps crumble, they search for more gaps. In some cases, they just manufacture gaps.

 

[dad]

The sequence of fossil evidence does not reveal the ex nihilo creation of living things. The very fact that it is a sequence refutes creation as described in the Bible.

The fact that man and most animals could not leave fossil remains in the former nature supports creation as decribed in the bible and the fossil record.

The demonstration of age of the fossils and the earth also stands, since nothing has been presented to contradict the dating evidence. Claims that physics was different in the past remain claims without substance.

The evidence is ratios of isotopes basically, as well as a number of other things that all premise upon nature being the same always. The evidence alone is not dating anything for the far past. Only your beliefs foisted and imposed onto evidence makes things seem old inside your head.

There is no evidence of magical adaptation of individuals. Zero. Zip. Nada.

False. If by magical you mean rapid and not seen today in nature, then this is supported by bible evidence. We know when creation was and when the flood was approx. The evolving that did happen had to be rapid.

A horse did not jump in the sea and magically become a fish and then grow feathers and fly away.

Correct. And evolution in the past was not only rapid but probably occurred without any descent, that is, to the living creatures. So your attempts to claim common ancestry are shown to also rest on your one trick pony same nature in the past belief.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is no evidence that the laws of nature were different in the past than they are today. NO ONE has presented any evidence to support such a fantastical and nonsensical notion.

Hominid fossils are well-known in the fossil record and NO ONE has provided any evidence to the contrary or that contradicts the most reasonable and rational explanation.

There is NO EVIDENCE supporting the claims of Genesis. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any accelerated, universal biological evolution over the last 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years,...

There is NO EVIDENCE of evolutionary adaptation in individual organisms.

The current and reigning best explanation for all the evidence remains the theory of evolution. The stories found in Genesis do not rank as explanations of anything, and are merely claims without support of the evidence.

 

[dad]

There is no evidence that the laws of nature were different in the past than they are today.

There is actually in history and Scripture. There is none in science either way. You may make no claim based on science.

Hominid fossils are well-known in the fossil record and NO ONE has provided any evidence to the contrary or that contradicts the most reasonable and rational explanation.

Post flood man did begin to leave remains. So?

There is NO EVIDENCE supporting the claims of Genesis.

No evidence disputes it. Cry me a river.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any accelerated, universal biological evolution over the last 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years, 100,000 years,...

There is no evidence of your imaginary time. There is evidence for Scripture. Therefore the times given in Scripture are evidenced also.

There is NO EVIDENCE of evolutionary adaptation in individual organisms.

Or not, in Noah's day. Considering the recorded times of events it did have to be fast.

Make no claims.

The current and reigning best explanation for all the evidence remains the theory of evolution.

That passe sick fable is actually not even a good lie..and falling fast.

The stories found in Genesis do not rank as explanations of anything,

They are obviously explanations. Whether or not you believe them is another issue.

and are merely claims without support of the evidence.

Science cannot check. But the prophesies that are fulfilled and the observed miracles and etc etc are evidence that the book is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is interesting to see the unsupported, pigeon chess arguments that get put together to attack science. They are not even arguments. Empty claims with NOTHING to support them.

These manufactured gap claims do reveal one thing. A recognition of the power and validity of science, since it is science that must be attacked in order for a very weak faith to survive.

 

[dad]

Science is fine. Belief based so called origin science are demonic fables with no support...as the poster above demonstrates. Evidence, not attitude or hatred of bible and God wins the day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The origin of life remains unknown and no scientists claims to know it. Anything to the contrary is made up. People believe all sorts of things, but there is no evidence supporting those beliefs no matter what confused, ignorant and desperate people may say.

Science is the best means that has been developed to learn about the world around us. In some cases, this has shattered long-held beliefs, and those that support strict adherence to dogma are still reeling at the falsification of their dogma. This in no way means that a person cannot maintain their beliefs, but an intelligent believer will recognize that dogma is better interpreted allegorically. Those that cannot are doomed to suffer repetitious bouts of denial that cannot be supported. Some might end up haunting the fringes of life pretending they know something when they know nothing. Instead of a living belief, they have a scared, desperate little belief that is dying of ignorance.