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

[John53]

Evolution may be true in all its aspects to you. And others. Just as no one here saw the earth being formed, neither has anyone seen fish evolving to become total land dwellers.

I have, I've observed mudskippers and lungfish.

 

[McBell]

Evolution may be true in all its aspects to you. And others. Just as no one here saw the earth being formed, neither has anyone seen fish evolving to become total land dwellers.

And yet you ask for all manner of evidence for evolution that your beliefs get a pass on.

Thus your standards for evolution is much higher than your standards for your beliefs.

 

[YoursTrue]

"GodDidIt" is not an explanation.
At best is it is a placeholder.

I can only relate my experience that drew me to understand about God and the Bible. I can tell you what I know from the Bible. That is one reason why I say I do not know how God formed the earth and life on it. Or the universe. Beyond what the Bible says. Because -- no matter what science conjectures about this, i.e., the earth and how it was formed and how life started and continued, we don't really know. DNA and all.

 

[McBell]

I can only relate my experience that drew me to understand about God and the Bible.

Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

I can tell you what I know from the Bible.

Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

That is one reason why I say I do not know how God formed the earth and life on it.

Guess what?
Yeppers, Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

Or the universe. Beyond what the Bible says. Because -- no matter what science conjectures about this, i.e., the earth and how it was formed and how life started and continued, we don't really know. DNA and all.

And we will never know if all we do is stick our heads in the sand in the belief that simply saying "GodDidIt" is any sort of explanation.
For anything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

Guess what?
Yeppers, Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

And we will never know if all we do is stick our heads in the sand in the belief that simply saying "GodDidIt" is any sort of explanation.
For anything.

You will never know how it happened. In other words, how life started and supposedly evolved...that is my belief, it may not be yours.

 

[YoursTrue]

Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

Guess what?
Yeppers, Which come no where close to the same amount of evidence for evolution.

And we will never know if all we do is stick our heads in the sand in the belief that simply saying "GodDidIt" is any sort of explanation.
For anything.

Well, I could give you my ideas, but they are not necessary. Therefore, I'll just say g'nite.

 

[Sargonski]

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

Come on .. Space Aliens ? aka "The Noodlers" came down from the sky and created humans ..

And may that - please-be the last word.

I say not .. I think someone has some Noodly explaining to do. why humans are the only animal without hair ..after being told they were naked ... and they made some clothes .. Right ! adaptation .. !?

 

[shunyadragon]

"Holy Carp what a pile of false accusation and strawman fallacy and made up nonsense." Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery .. but unfortunately, unlike the Chemist in the room .. you can not back up your bold acusations which is just projection

Being a Chemist I understand radioactive decay quite well .. you know .. subject matter domain science and all .. so nice of you to talk about radioactive waste .. but not nice that you did not link this at all to support for your nonsense claim that mutation by gamma ray explosion is not random.

You then go on to build another strawman .. suggesting I have attempted "to refute the chance and random forces which drive evolution."
when the reverse is true .. my position is that random forces and chance are drivers of evolution - and it is YOU who has been suggesting that this is not the case which is arguing for intelligent design .. as you yourself state.

What part of the picture of a dog chasing its own tail is not revealing itself .. this is the 3rd time I have pointed out this contradiction in your position .. and you went and did it again in the above post .. in addition to pretending I hold this wonky position.

You are the one arguing for intelligent design thusfar ... and not me. I read James Gliek's book "Chaos Theory" when it came out ~ 4 decades ago.. and you are on the right track in terms of finding order in the Chaos .. but for the moment have things backwards .. ... just have to reverse everything you have been saying and you will have solved a puzzle.

Last .. you are an absolutely terrible listner .. have absolutly no idea what is being said to you .. as evidenced by attributing a position to the other the reverse of what they have said to you.

The forces of nature drive evolution .. some of those forces are random .. others are not .. this is just the facts of science .. not some religious or tribal fantasy you were wailing on about -- or was that someone else .. hard to remember the source of all these loony ideas .. my apologies if I have attributed one more fallacy to you than deserved.

Now .. Step 1) mutations are driven by a number of forces .. some static .. some random .. Agreed ?

as an aside .. they sent a Twin into space he experienced "subtle genetic changes" Astronaut twins study spots subtle genetic changes caused by space travel

anyways Agree /Disagree

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

 

[Sargonski]

You will never know how it happened. In other words, how life started and supposedly evolved...that is my belief, it may not be yours.

we already know how it happened ? and certainly how it evolved .. abiogenesis is alive and well in this Earthly Hell .. as is the absence of the Hand of the Creator God .. in general.. those other demons spawned out of the creation of order in a sea of chaos .running the earth at this moment.

 

[YoursTrue]

we already know how it happened ? and certainly how it evolved .. abiogenesis is alive and well in this Earthly Hell .. as is the absence of the Hand of the Creator God .. in general.. those other demons spawned out of the creation of order in a sea of chaos .running the earth at this moment.

whatever...

 

[YoursTrue]

Says whom?

the dna and fossils. that's what says it. Nothing to verify that humans, bonobos, chimps, evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor."

 

[blü 2]

Says whom?

Ah, that's 'Says who'.

 

[John53]

Ah, that's 'Says who'.

I'm not qualified to discuss so I'll believe you.

 

[John53]

the dna and fossils. that's what says it. Nothing to verify that humans, bonobos, chimps, evolved from some "Unknown Common Ancestor."

That's exactly what the DNA and fossils point to.

 

[gnostic]

Proof to me is like taking 2 parts hydrogen and combining them with 1 part oxygen and up comes water.

As I told you before proofs are either logical models or mathematical models, which can be represented as formulas or equations.

Such formulas and equations would have variable(s), constant(s), number(s), and so on.

In chemistry, proofs would be showing chemical formulas of molecules, like your water molecule example, or formulas that showed chemical reactions.

In the periodic table, hydrogen is often represented by capital letter H, and oxygen with letter O. When representing each atoms by themselves, they usually have 2 numbers assigned to them, one number written in superscript before atom symbol that represents atomic number, and another number is in subscript before the atom symbol that represents atomic mass.

So 1H where the 1 is atomic number of hydrogen having one proton. Oxygen has 8 protons, so it will be written as 8O. I don’t know how to show superscripts here, but normally hydrogen has no neutron particle, so the superscript number would be 1 also. Oxygen has 8 neutrons, so the superscript number 16, that’s the atomic mass for oxygen.

In form of gas, the hydrogen gas would be 2 hydrogen atoms linked together as hydrogen molecule, represented after atom symbol, so it would like this H2, while oxygen gas molecule look lik this O2.

The water molecule that you have chosen, the chemical formula for this molecule would look like this

H2O​

The molecule formula is would be proof, but this proof is only a logical model, it isn’t evidence. Evidence and experiment are about actual observations, as well as showing data, such as quantities and measurements. Evidence and experiments are about physical demonstrations, YoursTrue.

So the question to you, would be, What evidence or experiment to show this H2O formula is true? Demonstrate it!

How would you demonstrate that a single water molecule has one oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms?

if you can demonstrate it with observational evidence, or perform experiments, then you would finally understand the difference between having proof and having evidence. But I won’t be holding my breath.

 

[shunyadragon]

Come on .. Space Aliens ? aka "The Noodlers" came down from the sky and created humans ..


I say not .. I think someone has some Noodly explaining to do. why humans are the only animal without hair ..after being told they were naked ... and they made some clothes .. Right ! adaptation .. !?

Actually humans have hair, but not much. It is best to say mostly hairless. Other mammals are mostly hairless like:

How (some) mammals lost their hair - PMC

An approach that allows scientists to identify regions of the genome that evolved faster in hairless mammals reveals candidate genetic mechanisms that gave rise to hairlessness. Research organism: Human, Mouse, Rat, Rhesus macaque, Other

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Most mammals have hair which can vary greatly in color, length and texture (Pough et al., 1989). However, there are several so-called ‘hairless’ species – such as whales, walruses, elephants, and humans – that have considerably less hair than other mammals.

The degree and type of hair in mammals evolved in adaptation to different environments

 

[Sargonski]

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

You ok SunnyD ? So what if you got your logic backwards .. not that big a deal friend ..certainly no reason to descend into disingenuous oblivion.

 

[gnostic]

Hardly. 2+2 equals 4 but no substantiation of any sort of fish evolving to landlubbers means exactly zero . Fossils are clearly no proof, in your language or mine.

That’s maths, not evidence.

Evidence would be demonstrating it that this maths is true.

For instance, if we were actually here together, I could put 2 apples on a table, and you can put another 2 apples on the same table, then we would get 4 apples in total. If we can physically demonstrate it, that would be evidence that would verify & validate the maths.

Having a physical fossil in front of you, that you can see, touch, measure the size (eg length, width, height) and weigh its mass (in kilograms), and testing the age using radiometric method, and so on, that‘s evidence, that’s not proof.

You are still confusing evidence with proof. As we keep trying to correct you, proofs are something like equations and formulas, hence maths.

but as @shunyadragon said, Evolution is biology, hence science. And as you brought up fossils, then they would be evidence for science. Maths are different, maths are all about abstract formulas or numbers, they are not physical. And science requires physical evidence or physical experimental tests.

 

[gnostic]

I can only relate my experience that drew me to understand about God and the Bible. I can tell you what I know from the Bible. That is one reason why I say I do not know how God formed the earth and life on it. Or the universe. Beyond what the Bible says. Because -- no matter what science conjectures about this, i.e., the earth and how it was formed and how life started and continued, we don't really know. DNA and all.

The Bible don’t teach science or maths.

The Bible talk of Joseph being a carpenter, but the gospel cannot teach anyone how to make tables and chairs from wood. It also doesn’t teach how one would fish.

The thing is, the Bible provides nothing that explains or instruct, about how people do things (eg farming, fishing, crafting tools, etc), or how the world works, eg how it rain, why there are thunders after lightnings, what cause high and low tides, how the earth rotate, etc.

A lot of the things that God say about nature, in Job 38, 39, 40 & 41, are utter garbage filled with superstitious nonsense. God can do things, hence the “God did it”, are not explanations in those chapters, the passages in those chapters in the book of Job, are demonstrations that the author have zero understanding of the natural world.

 

[shunyadragon]

You ok SunnyD ? So what if you got your logic backwards .. not that big a deal friend ..certainly no reason to descend into disingenuous oblivion.

You do not deserve any other response considering your failure to respond coherently and began with insults,

It went down hill when you could not distinguish between a natural event and a natural process.