Evolution Vs. Creationism

[Autodidact]

I never made any such claims. While you are at tell me what EVOLUTION IS since you seem to know so much more about it than everyone else.

O.K. In Biology, evolution is the fact that populations of organisms (not individual organisms) change over time. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains the mechanism of how that happens, which is this:

When organisms reproduce, their offspring are all slightly different from each other and their parents. These differences will result in slightly better/worse chances of surviving and reproducing. When worse, that trait will die out, because it doesn't get reproduced. When better, that trait will persist in future generations, and eventually spread throughout the breeding population, or species. Over many generations, these differences add up to be enough so that the population at this point is a new species from the original population. This is how we get new species.

New species continually branch out from existing species, eventually resulting in new genii, families and so forth.

All existing species derived from existing species, going back and back through time to a single ancestor. Everything on earth is related to everything else in this way.

That's ToE in a nutshell, and that's all it is.

 

[Autodidact]

I see no similarities in something like a animal that I would consider to be living opposed to a plant, virus or bacteria. - They are non-living. … and that goes back to my repeated claim that evolutionist or people that follow evolution are stuck on generalizations and tend to overgeneralize everything.

Your position is that plants are not alive? Really?

Uh, o.k., what's the difference between a plant and a rock?

Or, to put it differently, how would you define "living?"

Because, you know, Biology is the study of living things, and one of its branches is Botany, the study of plants. So Biologists do consider plants to be living things.

 

[Autodidact]

No because I know enough about plants, and bacteria to know that they are to dependent on their natural surroundings to be consider living.

"Plants are living organisms belonging to the kingdom Plantae."[wiki]

 

[Autodidact]

That is not living. That is called feeding on the living like a parasite.

A virus is a small infectious agent that can replicate only inside the living cells of organisms.

A pathogen, (from Greek: πάθος pathos "suffering, passion", and γ[FONT=&quot]ἰ[/FONT]γνομαι (γεν-) gignomai (gen-) "I give birth to") an infectious agent, or more commonly germ, is a biological agent such as a virus, bacteria, prion, or fungi that causes disease to its host.[1][2]

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

Viruses are different from bacteria.

Bacteria do feed on trees, animals, and every other living thing.

 

[averageJOE]

If viruses and bacteria were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals.

If humans were really living do you think they would be feeding on trees and animals?

 

[Gloone]

Evolution is a myth. I have seen no one provide any evidence for it.

 

[PolyHedral]

What, you mean nobody's told you about the whole field of comp. science that relies on it being true?

 

[LuisDantas]

I haven't seen the Egyptian Sphinxes either (disregarding photos and pictures). It might have something to do with my never putting myself in a position that would allow me to see them in person.

 

[Autodidact]

Evolution is a myth. I have seen no one provide any evidence for it.

Are you interested in reviewing the extensive, enormous catalogue of evidence that persuaded the entire field of Biology to accept it as its foundational theory?

First, do you think you understand what it says?

If you don't understand that plants are living things, we may have some trouble.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Evolution is a myth. I have seen no one provide any evidence for it.

Big surprise.
He hasn't seen evidence that plants and bacteria are living things either.

 

[Gloone]

All existing species derived from existing species, going back and back through time to a single ancestor. Everything on earth is related to everything else in this way.

That's ToE in a nutshell, and that's all it is.

... what is the single common ancestor? Is it too a living thing or just the natural environment that houses all living and non living things?

 

[Autodidact]

... what is the single common ancestor? Is it too a living thing or just the natural environment that houses all living and non living things?

It was a living thing, a few billion years ago. So, do you want to learn what ToE says and what the evidence for it is, or do you find it easier to deny it exists if you refuse to actually look at it?

 

[Gloone]

It was a living thing, a few billion years ago. So, do you want to learn what ToE says and what the evidence for it is, or do you find it easier to deny it exists if you refuse to actually look at it?

That is still not evidence and it doesn't even sound logical.

 

[Autodidact]

That is still not evidence and it doesn't even sound logical.

I haven't presented any evidence yet. What I said is, if you're interested, and willing to invest the huge amount of time it would take to read and understand it, I'll go through it with you. However, I think you first need to understand what the theory says, don't you?

 

[Gloone]

I haven't presented any evidence yet. What I said is, if you're interested, and willing to invest the huge amount of time it would take to read and understand it, I'll go through it with you. However, I think you first need to understand what the theory says, don't you?

Well I believe that the common ancestor is the natural environment. So are you going to start with evolution by laying the building blocks for life that will house the living and non-living or do plan to start somewhere else?

 

[Autodidact]

Well I believe that the common ancestor is the natural environment. So are you going to start with evolution by laying the building blocks for life that will house the living and non-living or do plan to start somewhere else?

Don't understand what you're saying here. I was just going to explain ToE in simple terms, if you're interested.

 

[LuisDantas]

Read a bit about the scientific method and the ToE, Gloone. It will do you lots of good in threads such as this.

Or just check this.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...eference-faqs-tutorials-theory-evolution.html

 

[DeistPrimate]

Well I believe that the common ancestor is the natural environment. So are you going to start with evolution by laying the building blocks for life that will house the living and non-living or do plan to start somewhere else?

Don't understand what you're saying here. I was just going to explain ToE in simple terms, if you're interested.

Yeah Gloone often leaves me at a loss to understand what he's trying to say. How could the natural environment be a species of life commonly ancestral to modern forms? The sentence simply makes no sense.

What everyone is trying to do is start the discussion where biological evolution starts, which is in biology (i.e. living things including plants bacteria etc).

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Evolution is a myth. I have seen no one provide any evidence for it.

Here you go. Ignorance is no excuse...

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gloone]

Here you go. Ignorance is no excuse...

Nylon-eating bacteria - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have already debated that and not debating it again.