Evolution of what?

[Dimi95]

I understand that, not that I think scientists have all the answers (correctly, that is).

Nor do I and many orhers but that is not a reason to reject science

I can understand that.

Then , why don't you let any critic come to you?

I've already looked them up but as you said, they are theories. Really more like guesses or possibilities figuring how things changed from one organism to another.

Do you know with what scientist work to even try to explain how it happend?
To go from one to another procces they have only few hours , so they are also fighting with time in the lab.
So to say 'guesses' is ungratefull for those who even try discover something.

As for abiogenesis, maybe from space, maybe from water. And yes, it is said that God used soil. I wasn't there. I didn't see it happen.

So does that mean that you should not belive in God ? Because you were not there ? I am using your standard

Aside from the fact that there is no proof of evolution

False , there are many facts and evidence that support the theory of Evolution

it seems impossible to duplicate, even with the Miller-Uray experiment because it stopped where it stopped -- and needed help to get it "started."

Just because we don't know what is driving it , it does not mean it did not happen.Your standard is selective

I realize the reason for that may be that there is not enough time. Which strikes me as not realistic anyway because again -- there is no actual showing of how serious differences occurred.

Again , that doesn't mean Evolution did not happen

Not all science is the theory of evolution, is it, so I'm not sure what you mean by science. I do take vaccines and things like that. Plus use the internet. Take x-rays, hope they don't kill me so I appreciate the shields they put on patients, all benefits of scientific research and testing.

Yes , but Theory of Evolution is a result of observations and experiments followed by knowledge in Science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Nor do I and many orhers but that is not a reason to reject science

I do not reject science. Evolution starting from abiogenesis is not a fact as it now stands.

 

[Dimi95]

I do not reject science. Evolution starting from abiogenesis is not a fact as it now stands.

First you should learn that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separafe topics of discussion.
Why do you not even bother to listen to someone who has also religious beliefs like you?

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes , but Theory of Evolution is a result of observations and experiments followed by knowledge in Science.

No, the theory of evolution isn't a result of "observations and experiments followed by knowledge." If you continue your claim, please do back it up with substantial references to that point you just made. It's a theory with fossils inserted as evidence.

 

[Dimi95]

No, the theory of evolution isn't a result of "observations and experiments followed by knowledge." If you continue your claim, please do back it up with substantial references to that point you just made. It's a theory with fossils inserted as evidence.

The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from experimentation.

Sometimes i improvise with English , i apologize - it is not my first language

 

[YoursTrue]

First you should learn that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separafe topics of discussions.

Evolution (the theory of) simply could not have happened without the idea of abiogenesis, so please stop playing games and telling me what I already know from reading about the two ideas. Could (the theory of) evolution have happened without abiogenesis? Put another way, is abiogenesis necessary for evolution to have begun?

 

[YoursTrue]

The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from experimentation.

Sometimes i improvise with English , i apologize - it is not my first language

OK, well thank you for letting me know. Your English is really pretty good.
And no, the theory of evolution is not supported by evidence from experimentation. That scientists say it is does not make it so. And yes, I am happy that scientists now use shields to protect patients from the bad side effects that may occur from x-rays.
So thank you --

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you know with what scientist work to even try to explain how it happend?
To go from one to another procces they have only few hours , so they are also fighting with time in the lab.
So to say 'guesses' is ungratefull for those who even try discover something.

Not when they indicate these ideas are true. Some scientists are more truthful when they say things like, "We think," or "possibly," or "it suggests." Because they are honest enough to not say "we know..."
It's been nice speaking with you ... forgive me if I don't continue our polite discussion because I think we've both said as much as we can say now. If I can offer something more later, I hope to be able to.

 

[Dimi95]

Evolution (the theory of) simply could not have happened without the idea of abiogenesis, so please stop playing games and telling me what I already know from reading about the two ideas. Could (the theory of) evolution have happened without abiogenesis? Put another way, is abiogenesis necessary for evolution to have begun?

How can you say it did not happen?
Post #2156 in 'Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God'.

You are confusing yourself with the unspecified 'forces'.

 

[sayak83]

Let me ask you this question in reference to the idea that the brain increased in size over millions of years + due to evolution of these animals. Why do you think they grew in size?

Intelligence helps an animal do survive variable conditions by allowing behavioral flexibility...something that instinctive behaviors can't do.
In mammals as well in birds brain to body size has increased over time significantly in many groups...with some groups showing exceptional increase rates....apes, dolphin-whales, parrot and crow family, elephant family, dog family etc. It's what's called an adaptive niche.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Evolution (the theory of) simply could not have happened without the idea of abiogenesis, so please stop playing games and telling me what I already know from reading about the two ideas.

Except apparently you don't already know...

Could (the theory of) evolution have happened without abiogenesis? Put another way, is abiogenesis necessary for evolution to have begun?

Absolutely.

• Abiogenesis is a theory regarding the origin of life (as opposed to panspermia or of course, divine creation).
• Evolution is the theory regarding the diversity of life - how it changes and adapts. But let's not put the cart before the horse - the life has to get here somehow...

IOW, All that is necessary for evolution is for life to exist. How it got here is moot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

First you should learn that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separafe topics of discussions.
Why do you not even bother to listen to someone who has also religious beliefs like you?

That conflation is a common tactic with creationists. Insisting that natural evolution could only take place with natural abiogenesis. Which doesn't make sense given that many of them recognize evolution occurring since what they see as divine creation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from experimentation.

Sometimes i improvise with English , i apologize - it is not my first language

I've posted numerous examples of that evidence. Others have too. I don't have much confidence it is often understood given the state of scientific literacy encountered by those rejecting science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution is supported by evidence from experimentation.

Sometimes i improvise with English , i apologize - it is not my first language

Based on all I have observed, most of those rejecting science and adhering to a literal reading of Genesis don't understand the difference between the theory of evolution and the observed phenomena that it explains.

Often their personal version of the theory that they hold is some twisted version that is an amalgam of misunderstood popular accounts and sectarian claims denying the theory. The end result are confusing claims that evolution is false because fish are still fish or that chickens lay chicken eggs.

The best that I can understand this view is that evolution is seen as some linear transformation of fish turning into amphibians, amphibians transforming to reptiles and so on up to humans. While the populations of each proceeding step are seen as disappearing or should disappear based on this straw man version.

 

[F1fan]

I do not reject science. Evolution starting from abiogenesis is not a fact as it now stands.

It is the only plausible explanation. There are no other options.

 

[Dimi95]

The best that I can understand this view is that evolution is seen as some linear transformation of fish turning into amphibians, amphibians transforming to reptiles and so on up to humans. While the populations of each proceeding step are seen as disappearing or should disappear based on this straw man version.

Nah
I would say from chicken to T-Rex and then humans.

That is why the probably reject it , because it is seen like that.

 

[YoursTrue]

First you should learn that Abiogenesis and Evolution are separafe topics of discussions.
Why do you not even bother to listen to someone who has also religious beliefs like you?

Here is one definition of abiogenesis -- "the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
(That is from Definitions from Oxford Languages)
I'm not saying they are not separate topics, but you can't have one (evoution) without the other (abiogenesis).

 

[YoursTrue]

Nah
I would say from chicken to T-Rex and then humans.

That is why the probably reject it , because it is seen like that.

ok, so I can see you're not serious about this. Have a good one...

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nah
I would say from chicken to T-Rex and then humans.

That is why the probably reject it , because it is seen like that.

Anything that casts doubt on the very specific interpretation of humans being created and special. Separate from all other life, being in the image of God. But that particular path would indicate that many of them believe God looks like us. I see it to mean that we are spiritually in the image of God. Not as some physical manifestation. While the demand that humans were created as is leads to a rejection of science on ideological dogma, the vision of man in the spiritual image of God does not lead to a similar need to reject the facts of reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nah
I would say from chicken to T-Rex and then humans.

That is why the probably reject it , because it is seen like that.

It is interesting that your point is poo pooed as not serious. Given the sing-songy, not too serious approach I have often seen, I find that rejection amusing.