Evolution: the theory, the evidence

[R. Wayne]

Sorry for the typos, I'll take my time in the future. should read: survive past the first three or "four" seconds.
And, this "does" not demand...
Lastly: Ignorance proceeds from intractable minds that have, as yet, "not" become "open."
I live in the knowledge that I am a less-than-perfect at reasoning; for that reason, inasmuch as absolute truth is denied the finite mind ABSOLUTELY, my pursuits of reality can go no further than to reasonably conclude: which of the available alternatives is the one with the fewest doubts?
I use that one...

 

[R. Wayne]

Just because a whale has a bone that resembles the hip bone of hippotomus does not make them brothers or sisters. Who can state with certainty that, for example, a cyanobacterium actually possessed life...those particular prokaryotes, by means of their stromatolites, played a major part in the transformation of Earth's atmosphere from a toxic, oxygen-less one to an oxygen rich atmosphere. There are those, and I am one of them, that believe cyanobacteria were not "living" but, rather, were secondary causations existing solely as "functioning mechanisms." There is no valid evidence to the contrary. There is, I repeat, no way, for example, a cell can construct itself, no one can articulate the source of RNA is these early entities (it could not possible have come from a barren earth.) The "quality of life" differences in any given species can not be improved upon through inheritance. Either the first living organism COULD LOVE or it would be impossible for homosapiens to love if they HAD evolved. Qualitative states of consciousness, awareness, intellect, and the like, cannot evolve from something that didn't previously possess those states. Every living creatures is going to die...only man foreknows that eventuality! Perhaps your "exception" may have some thought-provoking aspects to it; In fairness, I will review that creature and get back to you.

 

[painted wolf]

Just what is a "Qualitative lesser"? There is no such concept in biology.

Which mechanism behind evolution do you dissagree with?
For example: mutation, natural selection, genetic drift... so on

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

It is fact - REALITY - that it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR A QUALITATIVE LESSER TO EVOLVE (OR BECOME) A QUALITATIVE GREATER! From whence, then, arrives such greater qualitativeness as is clearly seen through comparisons of all species on to the other. Unless, aided by something already possessing that greater qualitativeness, each species is imprisoned within its species, likewise the capabilities of that species. Darwin's single-celled organism could not have evolved. This also is reality because a cell cannot build itself. A cell must appear on this Earth at once whole and functioning or it will not survive past the first three or seconds. And, this not demand one believe cells or living. More on this later, if you are interested. Ignorance proceeds from intractable minds that have, as yet, become "open." The alternative with the fewest doubts regarding evolution up the food chain, I repeat (and let's apply Occam's Razor and keep it simple): Qualitative lessers cannot possibly evolve into qualitative greaters!

Hm, referencing the dead flogged horse of irreducible complexity and a mangled interpretation of Ockham's razor- all in one post!

 

[painted wolf]

Who can state with certainty that, for example, a cyanobacterium actually possessed life...those particular prokaryotes, by means of their stromatolites, played a major part in the transformation of Earth's atmosphere from a toxic, oxygen-less one to an oxygen rich atmosphere. There are those, and I am one of them, that believe cyanobacteria were not "living" but, rather, were secondary causations existing solely as "functioning mechanisms." There is no valid evidence to the contrary.

Ignoring the rest for the moment...

You obviously are not aware that cyanobacteria are still around(several species in the genus Collenia), still living and still making stromatolites as we speak. I would say that is pretty good evidence.
There are hundreds of species of cyanobacteria (more commonly known as 'blue-green' algae) the most common are the green slimy films that grow on ponds, but they also are found in the soil... they are everywhere.

I don't know where you got the idea that cyanobacteria are "not living" but they obviously have never studied biology.

wa:do

 

[Nepenthe]

Just because a whale has a bone that resembles the hip bone of hippotomus does not make them brothers or sisters.

Whale bones and hippo hips? Is this some prelude of an argument that whales shouldn't be placed with the artiodactyls and they aren't more closely related to whales than the peccary? Or did you read something in passing on a creationist website and decide to mention it? I'm sure Painted Wolf and others would be more than happy to share some info' and educate you about Merycopotamus medioximus and Hexaprotodon sivalensis if you just ask politely.

Who can state with certainty that, for example, a cyanobacterium actually possessed life...those particular prokaryotes, by means of their stromatolites, played a major part in the transformation of Earth's atmosphere from a toxic, oxygen-less one to an oxygen rich atmosphere. There are those, and I am one of them, that believe cyanobacteria were not "living" but, rather, were secondary causations existing solely as "functioning mechanisms." There is no valid evidence to the contrary.

, as usual, more than cleared up any ambiguity or confusion you may have had here.

There is, I repeat, no way, for example, a cell can construct itself, no one can articulate the source of RNA is these early entities (it could not possible have come from a barren earth.) The "quality of life" differences in any given species can not be improved upon through inheritance. Either the first living organism COULD LOVE or it would be impossible for homosapiens to love if they HAD evolved. Qualitative states of consciousness, awareness, intellect, and the like, cannot evolve from something that didn't previously possess those states.

Is this some kind of bizarre "first cause" argument?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

i studied this theory when i lived in Brussels at my third grade or something i don't really remember but i guess it didn't make sense to be back then or otherwise i would have became an atheist

aymen as a Muslim I would think you would be very interested to learn everything you can about Allah's creation. If you don't know all the facts of biology, which are explained by evolution, then you are missing out on all the wonder and beauty of nature.

Seriously, there are the most amazing and bizarre fossils, the most clever experiments, the most intricate and beautiful anatomical designs and reproductive mechanisms, all created by Allah and waiting for you to discover them, if you care to simply pick up a biology textbook and read. I beg your pardon for saying this, but it's sad to me that a seemingly intelligent person like yourself is missing out on hundreds of years of scientific discovery.

 

[Autodidact]

mmmkay, autodidact, i guess i ask you something.

as most deniers of evolution seem to accept micro evolution and not macro evolution, not knowing it is the same thing, what do YOU see as the BEST visible evidence for one species "becoming" another one (sorry for the formulation, but want to keep it simple).

Two obvious examples of speciation in the field are the "nylon bug" and the London Underground mosquito.

 

[Autodidact]

It is fact - REALITY - that it is IMPOSSIBLE FOR A QUALITATIVE LESSER TO EVOLVE (OR BECOME) A QUALITATIVE GREATER! From whence, then, arrives such greater qualitativeness as is clearly seen through comparisons of all species on to the other. Unless, aided by something already possessing that greater qualitativeness, each species is imprisoned within its species, likewise the capabilities of that species. Darwin's single-celled organism could not have evolved. This also is reality because a cell cannot build itself. A cell must appear on this Earth at once whole and functioning or it will not survive past the first three or seconds. And, this not demand one believe cells or living. More on this later, if you are interested. Ignorance proceeds from intractable minds that have, as yet, become "open." The alternative with the fewest doubts regarding evolution up the food chain, I repeat (and let's apply Occam's Razor and keep it simple): Qualitative lessers cannot possibly evolve into qualitative greaters!

Could someone who understands what this poster is driving at please translate it onto English for me? Thanks.

 

[Jose Fly]

Just because a whale has a bone that resembles the hip bone of hippotomus does not make them brothers or sisters.

Can you show a published paper where a paleontologist says "This bone from a whale resembles a hip bone from a hippo, therefore they are brothers"? Or are you committing the fallacy of argument via strawman?

Who can state with certainty that, for example, a cyanobacterium actually possessed life...those particular prokaryotes, by means of their stromatolites, played a major part in the transformation of Earth's atmosphere from a toxic, oxygen-less one to an oxygen rich atmosphere. There are those, and I am one of them, that believe cyanobacteria were not "living" but, rather, were secondary causations existing solely as "functioning mechanisms."

As PW astutely pointed out, we have cyanobacteria today, and they are very much alive.

There is, I repeat, no way, for example, a cell can construct itself, no one can articulate the source of RNA is these early entities (it could not possible have come from a barren earth.)

How do you know? When was the last time you searched through the relevant literature? Don't assume that your state of knowledge represents the state of the science.

The "quality of life" differences in any given species can not be improved upon through inheritance.

Demonstrably false. We see it happen all the time, right before our eyes. It's why we have bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. From the perspective of the bacteria, their "quality of life" is much improved when they evolve resistance to our drugs.

Either the first living organism COULD LOVE or it would be impossible for homosapiens to love if they HAD evolved.

So your premise is that all traits for all organisms that have ever existed on earth would have to be present in the first organisms? Really?

Qualitative states of consciousness, awareness, intellect, and the like, cannot evolve from something that didn't previously possess those states. Every living creatures is going to die...only man foreknows that eventuality! Perhaps your "exception" may have some thought-provoking aspects to it; In fairness, I will review that creature and get back to you.

Except we see new traits evolve all the time, right before our eyes. We can even make it happen at our whim. Why would you have us lie about it?

 

[johnhanks]

Either the first living organism COULD LOVE or it would be impossible for homosapiens to love if they HAD evolved.

Does this mean the first living organism had to be able to play poker, spit and scratch its as-s as well?