How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Audie]

There is more to evidence than simply witnessing something. Noöne has been observing gorilla reproduction over the last ten million years. There are other sources of evidence.

Earth must have been a wildly diverse place millions of years ago, considering how many now extinct species must have lived alongside remaining, current species; or do new species just pop into existence fully formed and continue without change?

If you believe each generation of gorillas or dogs or cabbages is different from its forbears, what keeps those small morphologic changes from accumulating?

Repeated, 10cm steps can accumulate into a trip around the world. A raindrop, repeated often enough, can accumulate into a sea.
We've selectively bred all kinds of animals and plants into forms completely different from the ancestral stocks. Why can this happen on a farm, but not in nature, given the same selective breeding techniques?

Have you reviewed the evidence? I believe it's a lot more robust than the evidence that a salamander or lizard just popped into existence one day on a hilltop.

Yet with virtually no objective evidence at all, you're positive that plants and animals were simply poofed into existence fully formed, courtesy of some invisible magician.

Virtually?

 

[blü 2]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

This is a not unusual cross between an argument from incredulity and an argument from ignorance.

If you'd set out to understand evolution, you wouldn't have to ask it.

You can start informing yourself >here< if you like.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have not told lies. Gorillas remain gorillas, unless of course you have proof they do not.

It is not a lie that gorillas remain gorillas.
But it is a falsehood that that is somehow a problem for evolution theory.
And this has been explained to you many many many times for the last couple of YEARS.

So your insistence on repeating this "as if" it is a problem for evolution theory, most definitely is deliberately stating a falsehood. aka, breaking the ninth commandment.

Why do you insist on being wrong?

And, as "science" may claim and you may agree with that -- there is no proof. So -- gorillas remain gorillas...no matter what you say there is nothing beyond that except, of course, conjecture.

For the bazillionth time: if gorillas would NOT remain gorillas, evolution theory would be DISPROVEN

 

[Pogo]

Virtually?

As in the person they are speaking to is living in a virtual reality?

 

[gnostic]

Well, of course, I can't use the word proof, anyway there is none.

That because the word proof, REFERRED TO LOGICAL MODEL or MATHEMATICAL MODEL, the later being mathematical equations or formulas.

Proofs are not evidence, and evidence are not proofs.

And the word PROVING mean, solving the equations. If you done Year 10, 11 & 12 high school maths, then you might have heard that one of the way to solve equation, would be to simplifying, or using algebra, or using differential calculus to rate of changes, or integral calculus to find the area of changes, or using vectors or matrices, and so on, all methods of equation solving. That's what proving is.

None of these are physical EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTS, which are methods of TESTING a theory or hypothesis. When testing a hypothesis, the evidence and experiments should yield important information, eg the physical or chemical composition, the physical properties (like dimensions, mass, volume, etc).

proofs, as in mathematical equations, are like the explanations and predictions in a scientific theory, it provide a possible answers or solutions, but the proofs/equations are not true, not science, until the evidence, experiments & data rigorously test equations, verified & validated them. otherwise the tests refute theory, and that would mean the equations or proofs are wrong and not science.

It is these tests, these evidence and test results from repeatable experiments THAT DETERMINE IF THE HYPOTHESIS IS SCIENCE or NOT, not the proofs.

That creationists such as yourself, continued to mistaken proofs being more important evidence and experiments, only demonstrate that overly overestimated your science proficiency.

That you keep making the same mistakes about proofs vs evidence, also make you look stubbornly ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

Seriously, how many times must you be corrected, before you finally acknowledge that you don't know what you are talking about, that you have erred, and do something to rectify your misunderstanding?

 

[Audie]

As in the person they are speaking to is living in a virtual reality?

If it's even that real

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am saying that because nobody noticed gorillas having evolved from or to anything other than gorillas there is no proof or evidence that they evolved from another form.

Proof is the wrong word, but you keep coming back to it as if your comments using the word have any meaning.

And you are wrong about the evidence. It confirms the theory and the fact that gorillas evolved from earlier primates that were not gorillas.

Also, you continually make the error of thinking that your very limited knowledge of that evidence is an adequate metric for judging what evidence exists. Your opinions are uniformed.

I am also saying that because the fossil was found of an animal called Tiktaalik and scientists decided it was a transitional form leading to landlubbers does not mean it was

Correct. It is not a transitional form because scientists said it was. It is a transitional form because it appeared after the first fish and before the first reptiles and blends features of each.

I'm not reverting to proof.

You do it repeatedly. You keep coming back to that word.

You must be aware by now that you seem to be either ineducable or dishonest to a growing number of people depending on whether you've ever understood why that's the wrong word. Normally, that's an incentive to adapt and conform to accepted usage, but not for you.

the word can be aptly used in my opinion

Not in this context. @gnostic just explained to you where the term can be used aptly two posts above this one.

there is no evidence (call it proof maybe but I know science doesn't think there is proof of anything) that fish developed to land dwellers

You are wrong. You don't care, do you? And there's proof again, but this time with a glimmer of understanding that the word might be inappropriate in the eyes of others, but no sign that you don't intend to continue using it.

Some may think there is evidence, but again -- that evidence does not show/portray/reveal or -- prove that fish evolved to be land dwellers.

You are wrong again. That's settled science. Only creationists remain in the dark there.

What an unenviable task for you, to come onto a site like this where you encounter educated people trying to defend an idea that they know is incorrect with no information, just a bunch of beliefs you can't defend. You are unarmed for such a battle. All you've got is a handful of phrases such as "gorillas are still gorillas," "no evidence," "no proof," and "conjecture."

I realize it's pointless to ask you why you do this to yourself. You have to read repeatedly about your ignorance and intellectual dishonesty. You're not learning and not teaching. So what are you doing? What motivates you to play this part? This must fulfill some drive or need in you, but what? Is this some kind of whistling in the dark - some form of self-reassurance? Does this recharge your faith? Are you performing for an imagined audience of one for some hoped-for reward? Are you martyring yourself?

I said pointless to ask because in my years of message boarding on sites like this one, I've asked at least a dozen other creationists that question and never get a reply. Not once, which is also a great mystery. Why never an answer? Maybe that's a clue as to what the answer is.

 

[shunyadragon]

17

You are talking nonsense .. the gamma ray breaking the bond is part of the process .. thus the process is random .. and it is a random process by which mutations happen .. at least some of them as gamma ray is not the only way mutations happen .. and there are numerous other parts ..

The violation of this random nature .. may then be evidence of an invisible hand ..

Your intentional ignorance of science and selective misuse to justify your ancient tribal agenda makes it impossible to communicate with you concerning science. You acknowledge that the gamma ray breaking event is part of a process and then refer to it as a random process, IT is indeed an event, and the cause and effect nature of the event and all the chain of cause and effect related events have a known cause and predictable pattern with a limited range of outcomes over time that is NOT random by definition. In nature the only thing that is random is the timing of individual events which does not determine the outcome of the nature of the outcome of the chain of cause and effect events, which are determined by natural laws and processes.

You may go on and on and on in your combative anti-science agenda, without resolution until you are willing to get a less biased education how genetics, mutations and the sciences of evolution without your combative anti-science agenda

Again natural selection is not a random process and driven by environmental change over time. Genetic mutations only provide the genetic diversity in a given population and do not in and of themselves cause the evolution of the population of life forms. Natural Selection is not dependent on whether mutations are random or not. Again mutations just contribute to the diversity of the gene pool of the population without regards to whether they are neutral, beneficial or harmful. This how things work today as in the over 4.0 billion years of the evolution of life,

Any more religious agenda driven nonsense without competent science will not result in a response,

 

[Sargonski]

Your intentional ignorance of science and selective misuse to justify your ancient tribal agenda makes it impossible to communicate with you concerning science. You acknowledge that the gamma ray breaking event is part of a process and then refer to it as a random process, IT is indeed an event, and the cause and effect nature of the event and all the chain of cause and effect related events have a known cause and predictable pattern with a limited range of outcomes over time that is NOT random by definition. In nature the only thing that is random is the timing of individual events which does not determine the outcome of the nature of the outcome of the chain of cause and effect events, which are determined by natural laws and processes.

You may go on and on and on in your combative anti-science agenda, without resolution until you are willing to get a less biased education how genetics, mutations and the sciences of evolution without your combative anti-science agenda -- and not me. All reversed you have things my young apprentice.

Again natural selection is not a random process and driven by environmental change over time. Genetic mutations only provide the genetic diversity in a given population and do not in and of themselves cause the evolution of the population of life forms. Natural Selection is not dependent on whether mutations are random or not. Again mutations just contribute to the diversity of the gene pool of the population without regards to whether they are neutral, beneficial or harmful. This how things work today as in the over 4.0 billion years of the evolution of life,

Any more religious agenda driven nonsense without competent science will not result in a response,

Holy Carp what a pile of false accusation and strawman fallacy and made up nonsense.

Lets us get the first thing straight .. lest you have forgotten .. "ME" = Scientist "You" = not so much. It is you demonstrating "ignorance of science" - "Selective Misuse to justify some tribal -religious agenda"

Your inferred claim that gamma ray mutations are not random .. is "anti-science" nonsense. Full Stop ..
and thus .. any process that is dependent on this random process is itself a random process.

What I also said .. gone blistering deer in headlights .. is that genetic mutation is not the only means by which mutations happen .. which means that the gamma ray mutation path may be insigificant to the overall path of natural selection ..

The fact that other factors -- such as environmental change can drive the direction of evolution --does not change the fact that random factors are sometimes involved .. nor can you claim that environmental factors do not have a random element .. certainly in affecting survival if the fittest.

Your claim that the process of evolution is not based .. at least in part .. on random chance is preposterous anti - science nonsense .. exactly what you are accusing others of. As it turns out the process of evolution is even more random than initially assessed on closer inspection.

Your position is crucified friend .. based on some religious or tribal agenda

Now .. if the process of evolution is random by nature the forces dictating its path .. but we notice deviations .. notice that evolution is not random ... as you suggest but perhaps don't know how to express .. then it is you who is suggesting an invisible hand .. You who has the religious perspective..

If observed evolution is not random as you suggest .. this means you are arguing for intelligent design .. that the machine is programed to deviate from random .. deviate from entropy and produce some order out of the Chaos.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The basic explanation of how life arose and was made is obviously very brief as described in the Bible. But the complexity of life, including that of animal life, really does demonstrate that the how's and why's are truly beyond human explanation except as conjecture. To actually see the different types of birds' nests is astounding and -- as far as I am concerned, scientifically inexplicable as to how each species of birds perform their particular functions except by conjecture, of course.

Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There is nothing whatsoever to back up your claims of me lying and God lying. You just make those claims with no backup. also @shunyadragon You are proving your points about you both lying. You just call names with nothing beyond that.

There is though.
All of us, many, many, many times have pointed out that the caricature you present of evolution where "gorillas don't produce dogs" and "gorillas only produce gorillas" is in error and is not an accurate description of evolution So. Many. Times.

At some point we have to wonder, how on earth can you possibly be repeating the same error you've been making and we've all been correcting for going on 3 years now.

What's the deal??

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am saying that because nobody noticed gorillas having evolved from or to anything other than gorillas there is no proof or evidence that they evolved from another form.

Yes, and you've been corrected and have had proper explanations provided to you many, many times.

You still repeat this.

I am also saying that because the fossil was found of an animal called Tiktaalik and scientists decided it was a transitional form leading to landlubbers does not mean it was, and mioreso, it does not mean it evolved from or to anything.

Yes, and you've been corrected and have had proper explanations provided to you many, many times.

You still repeat this.

Does that mean I think it came about because of a creator? Just as I cannot prove this organism came about because of evolution, I cannot prove it came about otherwise.]

Then why do you believe something you can't demonstrate?

I'm not reverting to proof. But the word can be aptly used in my opinion. I am simply pointing out that there is no evidence (call it proof maybe but I know science doesn't think there is proof of anything) that fish developed to land dwellers. Some may think there is evidence, but again -- that evidence does not show/portray/reveal or -- prove that fish evolved to be land dwellers. I understand the logic that some put forth and believe, however, again -- while the theory may appear to some, including scientists, to be logical or substantiated from the evidence looked at, it still does not make it true.

And you've been repeating this mantra since Day 1, despite the fact that you've been corrected and have had proper explanations provided to you, many, many times. Here you are, 3 years later, still repeating the EXACT. SAME. THING.

You make yourself look as though you're incapable of taking in and retaining new information. That certainly isn't the case, right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Proof is the wrong word, but you keep coming back to it as if your comments using the word have any meaning.

Since there is no proof of the theory, it does not have to be correct. Except in the minds of believers. And there is no proof. That is correct.

 

[McBell]

Your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Is it inability or unwillingness?
Either way, it is not a valid argument against science.

 

[YoursTrue]

That you keep making the same mistakes about proofs vs evidence, also make you look stubbornly ignorant and intellectually dishonest.

Proof to me is like taking 2 parts hydrogen and combining them with 1 part oxygen and up comes water. That's proof that 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen makes water. One dictionary of proof actually fits in with your mode of figuring evolution is true. That is: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." So that is one definition of proof. You might want to go with that since you keep saying there is no "proof" in science and that evolution hits the spot when it comes to reality. I do not agree, but that's how the world goes now. When you can show the reality of evolution as it progressed with birth and rebirth, I'll take a look at it. But until then, hasta la vista. Or bon voyage.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Is it inability or unwillingness?
Either way, it is not a valid argument against science.

Good question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Is it inability or unwillingness?
Either way, it is not a valid argument against science.

I think it could also be due to having invested to much time and self-worth in a given understanding of reality. But that is not unique to religion as far as I can tell.

 

[McBell]

Proof to me is like taking 2 parts hydrogen and combining them with 1 part oxygen and up comes water. That's proof that 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen makes water. One dictionary of proof actually fits in with your mode of figuring evolution is true. That is: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." So that is one definition of proof. You might want to go with that since you keep saying there is no "proof" in science and that evolution hits the spot when it comes to reality. I do not agree, but that's how the world goes now. When you can show the reality of evolution as it progressed with birth and rebirth, I'll take a look at it. But until then, hasta la vista. Or bon voyage.

And again, why is it that evolution has to meet a much higher standard than your beliefs?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Proof to me is like taking 2 parts hydrogen and combining them with 1 part oxygen and up comes water. That's proof that 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen makes water. One dictionary of proof actually fits in with your mode of figuring evolution is true. That is: "evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement." So that is one definition of proof. You might want to go with that since you keep saying there is no "proof" in science and that evolution hits the spot when it comes to reality. I do not agree, but that's how the world goes now. When you can show the reality of evolution as it progressed with birth and rebirth, I'll take a look at it. But until then, hasta la vista. Or bon voyage.

Now prove to us that last Thursday existed, if you believe in that. I won't accept that without proof.

 

[Pogo]

Now prove to us that last Thursday existed, if you believe in that. I won't accept that without proof.

That's easy, everybody knows that his Noodliness created the world last Tuesday and Thursday comes after Tuesday.