Of course they do. They are an excellent example of it happening in current times.
Why did you quote those two sentences about abiogenesis? Are you implying that they has some relation to the nylon bacteria?
-
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 Vs. Creationism
- Thread starter dallas1125
- Start date
- Status
Of course they do. They are an excellent example of it happening in current times.
Why did you quote those two sentences about abiogenesis? Are you implying that they has some relation to the nylon bacteria?
Okey doky, then how does evolution explain the existance of this organism that reproduces....how did it come to existance?
We don't know yet.
It might conceivably be by divine creation, although I personally find that far-fetched and unnecessary.
Far more likely IMO is that life evolved out of complex molecules that accidentaly developed the ability of making copies of themselves out of free floating simpler molecules from their environment. It may sound more far-fetched than it is. The trick is in getting the first few molecules to self-reproduce; once it happens, they will of course make more of themselves and even introduce variety by way of imperfect copies.
But truth is, we don't know for sure how life came to be. At least, not yet.
Coacervate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It might conceivably be by divine creation, although I personally find that far-fetched and unnecessary.
Far more likely IMO is that life evolved out of complex molecules that accidentaly developed the ability of making copies of themselves out of free floating simpler molecules from their environment. It may sound more far-fetched than it is. The trick is in getting the first few molecules to self-reproduce; once it happens, they will of course make more of themselves and even introduce variety by way of imperfect copies.
But truth is, we don't know for sure how life came to be. At least, not yet.
Coacervate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And I totally see your point and I can understand why you believe in it. But, no offence, down to our day I have never read or heard any sound proof of an organism evolving into something else. Fishes are still fishes, apes are still apes, humans are still humans. Yes, there are instances of the body adapting to weather and temperature but it is not considered evolution.
No offense taken. Still, I can only assume that you are either unaware or unaccepting of the evidence, which has by this point become pretty much undeniable. Lots of transitional species have been found, even between fishes and amphibians, as well as hominids both directly and undirectly related to humanity. To say that is is not so is simply wrong.
A common joke is that every new transition found opens two more "empty slots"
and there are lots of "empty" slows now.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Ok you're new here so it probably hasn't been pointed out to you that your lack of knowledge on a subject is in NO way an indication of the truth of it.
Stick around and if you want to you will learn a thing or two.
-Q
No offense taken. Still, I can only assume that you are either unaware or unaccepting of the evidence, which has by this point become pretty much undeniable. Lots of transitional species have been found, even between fishes and amphibians, as well as hominids both directly and undirectly related to humanity. To say that is is not so is simply wrong.
A common joke is that every new transition found opens two more "empty slots"
I am actually very aware of the so called evidence as I read a lot, wich in effect is to this date only a theory (wich is why it's called Theory of Evolution - ToE). The fact that our skeleton is similar to that of an ape or that our muscle structure is very similar is not evidence that we have evolved from them....there is still the "missing link" that proves it all, and it has not been found, even scientists today say it. More over Evolution should be continuous, to this date nothing is evolving. But it has only being used to somehow trying to explain our existance. So for the moment we have to accept the fact that it is a theory under consideration. On the other hand there are accounts in the scriptures that prove the existance of a creator who intended us to be on the earth.
Welcome to this thread Quaxotic, I have stuck around for long enough thanks.....you should have a read at the previous comments
McBell
Unbound
Define for us what you think a scientific theory is.
Only if you prefer ratification over truth.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Welcome to this thread Quaxotic, I have stuck around for long enough thanks.....you should have a read at the previous comments
This post of yours proves exactly what i'm saying
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2311117-post347.html
Your trotting out of the same old everyday misconceptions proves you know NOTHING about the topic.
As i said if you are willing to learn it may actually.
-Q
I know both Creationists and Evolutionist....I agree with neither of them. I am here to see you all climbing on mirrors...you included
That is not true, Maury. Sorry.
It is "only" a Theory because it has been proven scientifically to be true. While the word lacks weight in everyday use, scientists don't call just any idea a theory. Theories need proof before they are scientifically accepted.
With all due respect, you can't possibly be much aware of the current evidence. Because, well, if you were we wouldn't be having this discussion.
By itself it is very weak evidence, perhaps only a suggestion, true.
Sorry, that is false. There ain't no missing link.
Much on the contrary, we actually have a variety of fossils of hominids, some of whom are "cousins" of humanity instead of its forefathers.
Not only that, we have reached a point where fossils aren't even particularly needed as evidence. Evolution is not only proven, it is used daily and intensively as biological technology. And Human Evolution, specifically, is FAR better documented and researched than you suspect.
Again, that is demonstrably false. Everything keeps evolving, from bacteria and virii to humans and others. It just turns out that it takes generations for evolution to happen, and therefore we easily don't see it happen in our own species.
A proven theory, with wide practical use and solid suporting evidence, yes.
What exactly do you mean by "explaining our existence"? If it is the origin of Homo Sapiens as a living species distinct from other primates, it is not an attempt any longer. It is a done deal. If you mean the origin of life itself, there is still room for speculation on that matter.
Assuming the scriptures to be literal truth, that would be right, yes.
A Scientific Theory is composed of concepts and observations, it is formed to conform to available data about such observations and is used as a principle or collection of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.
A "fact" can refer to verified information about past or present circumstances or events which are presented as objective reality. In science, it means a provable concept.
As for ratification, I strongly believe it has a broader application on both creationists and evolutionists.
McBell
Unbound
Now explain the relationship between scientific theory and fact.
The Neo Nerd
Well-Known Member
Your trotting out of the same old anti evolution misconceptions proves you know NOTHING.
And the only thing i'm looking at climbing is the wall of your ignorance.
-Q
Scientists have NOT found the necessary "links" between apelike animals and man...."Science Digest" speaks of "the lack of a missing link to explain a relatively sudden appearance of modern man. "Newsweek" observed: "the missing link between man and apes....is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule"
Because there are NO links, "phantom creatures" have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they really existed. That explains why the following contradictions could occur, as reported by a science magazine: "humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contended, in sudden jumps from one form to the other....But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion"......
Thus we can better understand the observation of Solly Zuckerman (a respected anatomist) who wrote in the "Journal of the Royal Collage of Surgeons of Edinburgh": "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in man's evlution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allow speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more". He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary...............
Because there are NO links, "phantom creatures" have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they really existed. That explains why the following contradictions could occur, as reported by a science magazine: "humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contended, in sudden jumps from one form to the other....But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion"......
Thus we can better understand the observation of Solly Zuckerman (a respected anatomist) who wrote in the "Journal of the Royal Collage of Surgeons of Edinburgh": "The search for the proverbial 'missing link' in man's evlution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allow speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more". He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary...............
It seems I am doing a lot of expaining.....why don't you enlighten me on the truths of evolution? and prove me wrong
Actually, at this point there is no need for any fossil findings.
We could even forget all about fossils such as Lucy and the Cro-Magnons and there would still be no room for reasonable doubt.
What anyone deems necessary is, of course, arbitrary to some degree. But we have crossed all reasonable lines decades ago.
May you kindly offer the sources? Year, issue number, author?
Unfortunately, misrepresentation is way too common. You wouldn't believe the distortions and even all-out frauds that we find.
I think you misunderstood him. He is claiming that there is a search, not that there is an actual lack, or even that the search is justified.
He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary...............
You realize that is a fairly good description of the history of the ToE, far more so than of Creationism?
I have never said I support creationists, on the contrary, however...give me a day or so to get hold of all the sources and I will post them on here with pleasure...I am off to work now (horrible chef life)....I'll catch you guys in a bit.....hopefully you will still be the same and will not have evolved into something else....
just kidding
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
You guys really need to learn the basics of the Scientific Method before you embarrass yourself when you talk about it. When you confuse the colloquial use of the word theory with the scientific term, it only highlights your ignorance.
As I told another uneducated poster earlier.
A theory, in the colloquial sense, is hardly more than an educated guess.
A theory, in the scientific sense, is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
A Scientific Theory, such as the Theory of Evolution, is generally accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole, because it presents evidence that explains the fact of biological evolution.
Other Scientific Theories are...
The Theory of Gravity
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity
Circuit Theory
Germ Theory
Convection Theory
Etc, etc, etc...
Scientific theories do not become facts, they explain facts.
Last edited:
- Status