-
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 My ToE
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
dad
Undefeated
No science I or anyone else uses, used, or ever will use has anything to do with your same nature in the past belief.
dad
Undefeated
All I hear is a desperate hope that no one else catches on to your lies. You have failed to address issues with substance.
Astrophile
Active Member
How else do you explain genetic similarities (in all living things, not only animals) other than by descent from common ancestors?
ecco
Veteran Member
Astrophile
Active Member
One doesn't need a telescope to see that stars differ from one another in brightness; one can see that with the unaided eye. Hipparchus classified stars according to their brightness (from 1st magnitude to 6th magnitude) during the 2nd century BC, more than 100 years before the apostle Paul was born.
dad
Undefeated
Creation.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
dad, once again you break the Ninth Commandment. When you make claims about others you need to know that you can defend them. You depend upon the same nature past every time that you drive your car. How do you think they found the petroleum that you rely upon? Or do you walk everywhere?
Astrophile
Active Member
That, or something like it, was the answer I had expected. There is no scientific or naturalistic explanation for the genetic evidence other than descent from common ancestors, so you have to invoke miracles and a supernatural creator. And presumably if there was no nested hierarchy of genetic similarities, you would attribute the lack of a nested hierarchy to creation; creation can explain anything, and therefore it explains nothing.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There are definitely some things in various textbooks taught to students that are NOT accurate, thus leaving students with the wrong information.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Did anyone answer what was the bridge, according to evolution, between plants and animals, or do you think they had different branches stemming from bacteria that developed differently from the supposed unicellular organisms, or maybe differing unicells, one giving rise to plants eventually, and the other giving rise to animal life? Or maybe a plant transitioning to animal at a certain point?
Plants, animals and fungi are evolutionary related in the eukaryotes (Protista). A kingdom of life containing plant-like, animal-;like, and fungi like protists. Basically they evolved differentiating within these mostly unicellular kingdom of Eukaryotes.
The following is from a Science 101 study lesson plan for senior high school students. When I was in school it was not covered until college, and not as detailed as in today's texts.
The Evolution of Protists: Importance & Evolutionary History - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
Characteristics of Protists
The cellular structure of protists
"You know the basics of what plants, animals, and fungi are, but what about those eukaryotic organisms that don't quite fit within these groups? Within our system of classification, these organisms fall into the Protista kingdom. Protists are eukaryotic, mostly unicellular, and mostly aquatic. 'Eukaryotic' means that they have cells with a nucleus and membrane-bound organelles and are similar to the cells that make up our bodies. Because they are eukaryotic, protists fall within the domain Eukarya. Most protists are unicellular, meaning they are only made of one cell. However, some protists are multicellular and are made of more than one cell. Most are aquatic, meaning that they live in the water.
Types of Protists
Protists are broken up into three main groups based on how similar they are to other eukaryotic kingdoms. The three groups are animal-like, plant-like, and fungus-like protists.
Animal-like protists are heterotrophs and get their nutrients by ingesting food, which is how animals, who are also heterotrophs, get their nutrients and energy. Animal-like protists are also called 'protozoa,' which means 'first animals.'
Plant-like protists are autotrophs and get their nutrients by performing photosynthesis, which is a process that uses sunlight to make sugars and oxygen and is also performed by plants to make nutrients and energy. Plant-like protists are also called 'protophyta,' which means 'first plants.'
The third group, the fungus-like protists, are also heterotrophs and get their nutrients by absorbing food. Now, this may seem a bit unusual, but this is how fungi get their nutrients and energy. Rather than eating food and then digesting it like animals and protozoa, fungus and fungus-like protists externally digest food and then absorb the nutrients."
More to follow . . .
.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Jose Fly questioning on nPeace's views...
Post #203
So keeping that in mind, the question remains.....is
that an increase in "complexity"? If not, then please
explain how you're determining and measuring
"complexity" and then explain why the evolution of
all those new traits isn't an increase of it.
Also, do you now understand how natural selection
acts on variability in populations?
Post #213
Does that constitute an increase in "complexity" or
not?
Also, do you now understand how natural selection
acts on variability in populations?
Post #232
Let's take a step back here. What is your de nition of "complex", speci cally in terms of how we
can tell which of two organisms is more complex than the other?
Post #659
Can you clarify something for me? Do you disagree that natural selection happens?
Post #670
So what is selection (bird predation) acting on? Is it acting on the color, or is it
acting on the genes that determine the color?
Post #690
Great! And btw, thanks for sticking around and seeing these discussions through.
Post #725
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying we can't tell what a mutated version of a gene does?
Hmmmm.....this kinda gives me the impression that the real root issue for you is about the ability of mutations to make an organism resistant. IOW, a gene providing resistance is fine, but a mutation leading to resistance is unacceptable to you. Is that right? If not, could you please clarify?
Post #733
Do you object to the notion that at least some forms of antibiotic and insecticide resistance are
genetically-based? If you do, what is your objection?
Post #743
Okay, good. Perhaps then you could clarify for me...where do you believe these genes come from,
and why do some organisms have them while others don't?
Post #756
So to be clear, you believe that a pathogen's ability to resist an antibiotic, or an insect's ability to resist an insecticide was intentionally designed into their genomes?
I've never seen any evidence that there is a "someone" who is "deciding" that mutations will happen. Do you believe there is a "who" behind all mutations?
Right. So I'm not sure what the issue here is. Do you disagree with the estimates of mutation rates
that geneticists have generated? If so, on what basis?
Post #771
So to be clear, you believe that a pathogen's ability to resist an antibiotic, or an insect's ability to resist an insecticide was intentionally designed into their genomes?
Do you believe there is a "who" behind all mutations?
What exactly is your understanding of mutation rates? How often do you think they occur?
I'm not sure what the issue here is. Do you disagree with the estimates of mutation rates that geneticists have generated? If so, on what basis?
nPeace responded to all of these questions. Jose Fly even took the time to mention that he appropriated that nPeace did not shut down the conversation, or "run away".
Now, after all of these posts, Jose Fly makes this allegation...
But if you are intent on leaving, it'll be yet another instance where you find ways to halt the discussion once it turns to you answering questions about your views.
Is this consistent with the facts?
That one post is inconsistent with the evidence, and contradicts the clear facts.
It betrays any credibility or honesty, and demonstrates deceptive tactics... a pattern of the past.
You are not being truthful here either, because I did not try to shut down any conversation here, at all. If that were the case, it would be shut down already.
Even if I did, the reason would not be because of your questioning me, but because of your repeating the pattern I just mentioned... that's good reason.
@Jose Fly I don't believe you are a stupid person. Sly, but not stupid.
I believe you know that this is sarcastic statement - ... and I made a thread where I didn't expect to be questioned. Wow. Anyone can see that from reading the post, but according to the pattern you have imprinted since my conversing with you last year, up till now, it is not surprising you would do this.
Bon Voyage.
None of the above represents a complete consideration of the objective verifiable evidence supporting evolution. It represents an unethical selective cut and paste of sound bites that you gerrymander to justify your religious agenda.
It remains a matter of fact that if all your citations were put back in context with ALL the scientific references and knowledge it could not possibly justify your warped perspective, and it remains a fact that 98% of the qualified scientists support evolution and reject your bogus unethical argument based on a religious agenda, and ALL the scientist are well aware of all you have cited.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One of the better ERV videos that I have seen. It goes into more detail on how ERV's are a slam dunk for evolution:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
How can that be true, if as you said in your last post to me, "this is the first time you are questioning me on my views"?
One of those statements has to be false. So which is it?
dad
Undefeated
In other words you seem to be saying that God is limited in how he had to have created by what you perceive are the 'methods' or processes of nature today. I don't think God is that small.
dad
Undefeated
A pretty lame assumption to think that the nature (natural) things we see happening today would tell us about a supernatural creation by a supernatural being ia long long time ago!
Just because it is far far above your paygrade and that of so called science does not mean that creation explains nothing. As you say, it explains everything! (but science understands nothing about it)
You seem to think the goal is to try to fool people into thinking you need to understand God or He can't exist! Foolishness.