How do you define evolution?

[SkepticThinker]

How do you know they are creationist websites? Please give specifics as to what you are saying, thank you.

I can tell from the talking points you are using.

I've been on these forums for a looooong time.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So you are saying that scientists (those who don't believe in creation, of course) know for sure what is the common ancestor of -- bonobos, humans, gorillas, etc.,? Please do answer, thank you.

Fossil Reveals What Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Liked
Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable
Primate Speciation: A Case Study of African Apes | Learn Science at Scitable
Last Common Ancestor of Apes and Humans: Morphology and Environment - PubMed




FYI: This, right here, is one of the creationist points I'm talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's the situation with viruses. Since you're so smart, dont believe in creative forces from a higher source, don't viruses stay viruses? Or what do evolutionists believe?

You didn't answer my question. It would be nice if you did; I'm trying to elucidate a point that you are refusing to acknowledge.

What does "viruses stay viruses" have to do with anything? Do you acknowledge that the SARS-CoV-2 virus has mutated, or not?

Also, you completely avoided the link I provided for you that answered your question. I hope you don't come back later asking the same question again.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I find it very unusual that no common ancestor of these types (humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, etc.) has been found. With so many outgrowths, it seems unusual that there has been found no definite connection insofar as common ancestry.
I see your argument about creation, but frankly, at this point, I do not contest the idea that man was taken from the soil (or dust, depending on application), and that Eve was taken from his rib. Since I wasn't there -- and because I believe the Bible (not literally in all circumstances, but figuratively if applicable), let me put it this way -- there is no proof that God did not maneuver circumstances to do what He wanted. To be clear, I don't think He makes accidents happen such as a shark attacking a child, for example. And since I believe in a Higher (Intelligent) Power (rather than natural selection, or survival of the fittest), I don't know what God did to form the man from the ground, I do know that He put his life-force in the man, which started him being alive. I am not here to conjecture about how God did it, or what it means exactly in the application. I just know that evolution does really not have the answers as to how life progresses naturally, more or less. Further, I was traveling today and saw a lot of greenery, most of which was in the ground untended by humans. It was rather pretty. But then I came across some beautiful homes. Now I figure someone made those homes. They didn't just come about by themselves, or magnetic force, comparing the trees by the sides of the road and the homes. Someone made the houses.

You know how you know someone made those houses? Because your experience with houses tells you that humans build houses. Because there are no known instances of houses building themselves. Because we know that (and can go and look if we want) blueprints were drawn up at some point and that human beings (plumbers, carpenters, electricians) were involved in the building of the house. Because we know houses don't reproduce biologically, as living organisms do. When we seek out design, what we're actually doing is comparing naturally-occurring objects (e.g. "greenery") with objects that don't occur naturally (e.g. houses). But what you've done here is placed yourself in a position where you are declaring that everything is designed, and then picking out which things you believe were designed by a God you haven't demonstrated the existence of. What you're saying is that this house you've found in the forest is designed, but also that the trees, grass, bushes, etc. are also designed. So what is it that you've compared the house to, in order to determine that it was designed, when you're declaring that everything is designed? The Watchmaker Analogy that you're using here doesn't hold up.

There is no proof that invisible farting pixies didn't create the universe either. Or that Santa Claus is real. That's why I tend not to believe something until there is evidence that points directly to it.

Maybe one day you'll explain why you believe the Bible without question while rejecting demonstrable scientific theories. Well, just one demonstrable scientific theory. You accept all the ones that you don't seem to think conflict with your religious beliefs. That should tell you something.



FYI: This is another one of those creationist talking points I was talking about.

 

[shunyadragon]

Here's the situation with viruses. Since you're so smart, dont believe in creative forces from a higher source, don't viruses stay viruses? Or what do evolutionists believe?

Yes, viruses have evolved to larger more complex self reproducing organisms called pithoviruses, clearly an intermediated between small simple viruses and other single celled organisms. The following article goes into some of what research has found concerning the evolution of viruses, In the ancient world of abiogenesis there were other single celled life present with viruses

The pithoviruses are clearly complex self-producing organisms sharing the properties and structures like complex cell walls of other single celled organisms.

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?

At more than 1.5 micrometers long, pithovirus is the largest virus ever discovered.
CHANTAL ABERGEL AND JEAN-MICHEL CLAVERIE

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?
The ancestors of modern viruses may have laid the groundwork for cellular life as we know it.

BYCARRIE ARNOLDFOR QUANTA MAGAZINE
PUBLISHED JULY 17, 2014

Chantal Abergel and Jean-Michel Claverie were used to finding strange viruses.

The married virologists at Aix-Marseille University had made a career of it. But pithovirus, which they discovered in 2013 in a sample of Siberian dirt that had been frozen for more than 30,000 years, was more bizarre than the pair had ever imagined a virus could be.

In the world of microbes, viruses are small—notoriously small. Pithovirus is not. The largest virus ever discovered, pithovirus is more massive than even some bacteria. Most viruses copy themselves by hijacking their host's molecular machinery. But pithovirus is much more independent, possessing some replication machinery of its own.

Pithovirus's relatively large number of genes also differentiated it from other viruses, which are often genetically simple—the smallest have a mere four genes. Pithovirus has around 500 genes, and some are used for complex tasks such as making proteins and repairing and replicating DNA.

"It was so different from what we were taught about viruses," Abergel said. (Also see "Virus-Infecting Virus Fuels Definition of Life Debate.")

The stunning find, first revealed in March, isn't just expanding scientists' notions of what a virus can be. It is reframing the debate over the origins of life.

Raw Material for Life

Scientists have traditionally thought that viruses were relative latecomers to the evolutionary stage, emerging after the appearance of cells.

"They rely on cellular machinery to help with their replication, so they need to have some sort of primitive cell to make use of that machinery," said Jack Szostak, a biochemist at Harvard University and a Nobel laureate. In other words, viruses mooch off cells, so without cells, viruses can't exist.

But some scientists say the discovery of giant viruses could turn that view of life on its head. They propose that the ancestors of modern viruses, far from being evolutionary laggards, might have provided the raw material for the development of cellular life and helped drive its diversification into the varied organisms that fill every corner of the planet."

You keep making foolish gotcha questions reflecting your self inflicted ignorance and failure to learn and understand science.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why is that? Do you expect they would have a logo stamped on them?

Congratulations on your discovery that people make houses.

Unfortunately this is the type of reply I expect from you. Sad really.

 

[YoursTrue]

You know how you know someone made those houses? Because your experience with houses tells you that humans build houses. Because there are no known instances of houses building themselves. Because we know that (and can go and look if we want) blueprints were drawn up at some point and that human beings (plumbers, carpenters, electricians) were involved in the building of the house. Because we know houses don't reproduce biologically, as living organisms do. When we seek out design, what we're actually doing is comparing naturally-occurring objects (e.g. "greenery") with objects that don't occur naturally (e.g. houses). But what you've done here is placed yourself in a position where you are declaring that everything is designed, and then picking out which things you believe were designed by a God you haven't demonstrated the existence of. What you're saying is that this house you've found in the forest is designed, but also that the trees, grass, bushes, etc. are also designed. So what is it that you've compared the house to, in order to determine that it was designed, when you're declaring that everything is designed? The Watchmaker Analogy that you're using here doesn't hold up.

There is no proof that invisible farting pixies didn't create the universe either. Or that Santa Claus is real. That's why I tend not to believe something until there is evidence that points directly to it.

Maybe one day you'll explain why you believe the Bible without question while rejecting demonstrable scientific theories. Well, just one demonstrable scientific theory. You accept all the ones that you don't seem to think conflict with your religious beliefs. That should tell you something.



FYI: This is another one of those creationist talking points I was talking about.

I will say that I have examined the Bible and have come to the conclusion that it is reliable. I cannot say I understand everything.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, viruses have evolved to larger more complex self reproducing organisms called pithoviruses, clearly an intermediated between small simple viruses and other single celled organisms. The following article goes into some of what research has found concerning the evolution of viruses, In the ancient world of abiogenesis there were other single celled life present with viruses

The pithoviruses are clearly complex self-producing organisms sharing the properties and structures like complex cell walls of other single celled organisms.

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?

At more than 1.5 micrometers long, pithovirus is the largest virus ever discovered.
CHANTAL ABERGEL AND JEAN-MICHEL CLAVERIE

Could Giant Viruses Be the Origin of Life on Earth?
The ancestors of modern viruses may have laid the groundwork for cellular life as we know it.

BYCARRIE ARNOLDFOR QUANTA MAGAZINE
PUBLISHED JULY 17, 2014

Chantal Abergel and Jean-Michel Claverie were used to finding strange viruses.

The married virologists at Aix-Marseille University had made a career of it. But pithovirus, which they discovered in 2013 in a sample of Siberian dirt that had been frozen for more than 30,000 years, was more bizarre than the pair had ever imagined a virus could be.

In the world of microbes, viruses are small—notoriously small. Pithovirus is not. The largest virus ever discovered, pithovirus is more massive than even some bacteria. Most viruses copy themselves by hijacking their host's molecular machinery. But pithovirus is much more independent, possessing some replication machinery of its own.

Pithovirus's relatively large number of genes also differentiated it from other viruses, which are often genetically simple—the smallest have a mere four genes. Pithovirus has around 500 genes, and some are used for complex tasks such as making proteins and repairing and replicating DNA.

"It was so different from what we were taught about viruses," Abergel said. (Also see "Virus-Infecting Virus Fuels Definition of Life Debate.")

The stunning find, first revealed in March, isn't just expanding scientists' notions of what a virus can be. It is reframing the debate over the origins of life.

Raw Material for Life

Scientists have traditionally thought that viruses were relative latecomers to the evolutionary stage, emerging after the appearance of cells.

"They rely on cellular machinery to help with their replication, so they need to have some sort of primitive cell to make use of that machinery," said Jack Szostak, a biochemist at Harvard University and a Nobel laureate. In other words, viruses mooch off cells, so without cells, viruses can't exist.

But some scientists say the discovery of giant viruses could turn that view of life on its head. They propose that the ancestors of modern viruses, far from being evolutionary laggards, might have provided the raw material for the development of cellular life and helped drive its diversification into the varied organisms that fill every corner of the planet."

You keep making foolish gotcha questions reflecting your self inflicted ignorance and failure to learn and understand science.

So let me know if you think that viruses may become something else? Like humans in the long run?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unfortunately this is the type of reply I expect from you. Sad really.

Considering the types of posts you make, what more can you expect. If you do not take this seriously, why should anyone else? Sigh.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Unfortunately this is the type of reply I expect from you. Sad really.

You do not answer questions asked of you. That is really sad in my opinion.

If you know so much about transitional forms, then explain to us how they have not been found among the many fossils that have been collected, examined and described. While you are at it, please answer my other questions that you so obviously avoided. I would love to know the part of the theory of evolution that says we should see one species suddenly become another species. I.e. dogs giving birth to cats.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I will say that I have examined the Bible and have come to the conclusion that it is reliable. I cannot say I understand everything.

Reliable in what way? Often the Bible is the only claim or record for a person written about in the Bible. Is the description of the global flood reliable? What is your basis for reliability?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So let me know if you think that viruses may become something else? Like humans in the long run?

When you say "become something else", what do you mean? You have never been clear on this and you refuse to describe or explain what you mean. Where in the theory of evolution is it stated that one biological entity will become another biological entity?

 

[YoursTrue]

You do not answer questions asked of you. That is really sad in my opinion.

If you know so much about transitional forms, then explain to us how they have not been found among the many fossils that have been collected, examined and described. While you are at it, please answer my other questions that you so obviously avoided. I would love to know the part of the theory of evolution that says we should see one species suddenly become another species. I.e. dogs giving birth to cats.

The point I bring out about transitional forms is that there has been no observation of them, either in real life scenario, or any other testable occasion. I'm not talking about covid19 becoming a delta virus. Or tigers and lions mating. By the way, are dogs and cats in the same lineage, backwards or forwards? From what I read, the answer is kind of 'no,' because they are not of the same species. Which made me wonder, what about lions and feral (small) cats, can they interbreed? After having looked at opinions about this type of thing, I am no longer going to keep examining the ideas behind the postulates about evolution and dna. Here's why: because there is no proof but hypothesis as to how it happened, regarding the dna changes. Despite scientists' thinking, and philosophical reasoning, there is (absolutely) no true proof, Since I am convinced that God caused life to grow on this earth, how He did it is not explained in the Bible. Except that He did it. So if it happened with dna relation, and climate change, it does not negate the teaching in the Bible that life was given by God. I really have no more questions, I thank you all for your responses.

 

[YoursTrue]

Reliable in what way? Often the Bible is the only claim or record for a person written about in the Bible. Is the description of the global flood reliable? What is your basis for reliability?

I have been reading about underwater cities, and things like that. There is often no proof of history there either. It's just 'there.' Obviously there have been floods. And decimation of cities and civilizations, leaving little recognizable history. There are so many specifics that have been verified in the Bible, I have come to realize this. What I find fascinating is that scientists are declaring the climate change will wreak more disaster upon life as we know it, including the devastation of coastal cities. This has nothing to do with the Flood of Noah's time, but rather the destruction of the earth by man's indecent and often selfish hand.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The point I bring out about transitional forms is that there has been no observation of them, either in real life scenario, or any other testable occasion. I'm not talking about covid19 becoming a delta virus. Or tigers and lions mating. By the way, are dogs and cats in the same lineage, backwards or forwards? From what I read, the answer is kind of 'no,' because they are not of the same species. Which made me wonder, what about lions and feral (small) cats, can they interbreed? After having looked at opinions about this type of thing, I am no longer going to keep examining the ideas behind the postulates about evolution and dna. Here's why: because there is no proof but hypothesis as to how it happened, regarding the dna changes. Despite scientists' thinking, and philosophical reasoning, there is (absolutely) no true proof, Since I am convinced that God caused life to grow on this earth, how He did it is not explained in the Bible. Except that He did it. So if it happened with dna relation, and climate change, it does not negate the teaching in the Bible that life was given by God. I really have no more questions, I thank you all for your responses.

What is a transitional form? What does it mean?

Dogs and cats are in the mammalian lineage. They are in the Carnivora lineage. I have no idea what you mean by being in the same lineage backwards and forwards. Canines are many different species, just as felines are many different species. I assume you mean the domestic dog and domestic cat, which are also different species.

Feral domestic cats? Imagine the size difference and you will have one answer for a species barrier between lions and domestic cats.

Again, it is unclear what you are talking about regarding DNA changes. Once again, and I am sure everyone else will agree, there is no proof as you keep claiming. This is science. It deals with evidence and sound, logical conclusions based on that evidence. Of course, you simply deny that there is evidence. Interesting stance though. Despite experts in the field with years of training, research and knowledge, you are going to ignore everything they say without even bothering to learn what that might be.

You can be convinced that it is divine creation that started life. The origin of life by natural means remains unknown and evolution would function on life with a supernatural origin as well as life with a natural origin. Your rejection of evolution on that basis is moot. Not to mention that you leave the door open to evolution by pointing out that the Bible does not say yea or nay regarding evolution as a means for God to have used in the diversity and relationships of living things.

 

[YoursTrue]

When you say "become something else", what do you mean? You have never been clear on this and you refuse to describe or explain what you mean. Where in the theory of evolution is it stated that one biological entity will become another biological entity?

From what I am reading, the theory of evolution is not described always in the same way. So when I talk about changing form, I personally am talking not as a scientist (obviously) about things like cats, chimps, fish, changing structures by evolving over the long period. It no longer is clear or acceptable to me as outlined by hardline evolutionists that it all came about by natural (unintelligently sponsored) selection. By that I mean there are those evolutionist mainlilners who do not believe in God. Since I had been an atheist (I used to say I did not believe in God), I can understand their belief. And I'm not getting into that right now, but as I said, the discussions have been helpful to me,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have been reading about underwater cities, and things like that. There is often no proof of history there either. It's just 'there.' Obviously there have been floods. And decimation of cities and civilizations, leaving little recognizable history. There are so many specifics that have been verified in the Bible, I have come to realize this. What I find fascinating is that scientists are declaring the climate change will wreak more disaster upon life as we know it, including the devastation of coastal cities. This has nothing to do with the Flood of Noah's time, but rather the destruction of the earth by man's indecent and often selfish hand.

Underwater cities? The Bible talks about underwater cities? What does the Bible say about underwater cities and how has the claims written there been verified?

It is pretty much assured that climate change will lead to significant increases in sea level, leaving many (maybe all) coastal communities flooded. Of course, that is all based on evidence following theory that has no proof and never will.

 

[YoursTrue]

What is a transitional form? What does it mean?

Dogs and cats are in the mammalian lineage. They are in the Carnivora lineage. I have no idea what you mean by being in the same lineage backwards and forwards. Canines are many different species, just as felines are many different species. I assume you mean the domestic dog and domestic cat, which are also different species.

Feral domestic cats? Imagine the size difference and you will have one answer for a species barrier between lions and domestic cats.

Again, it is unclear what you are talking about regarding DNA changes. Once again, and I am sure everyone else will agree, there is no proof as you keep claiming. This is science. It deals with evidence and sound, logical conclusions based on that evidence. Of course, you simply deny that there is evidence. Interesting stance though. Despite experts in the field with years of training, research and knowledge, you are going to ignore everything they say without even bothering to learn what that might be.

You can be convinced that it is divine creation that started life. The origin of life by natural means remains unknown and evolution would function on life with a supernatural origin as well as life with a natural origin. Your rejection of evolution on that basis is moot. Not to mention that you leave the door open to evolution by pointing out that the Bible does not say yea or nay regarding evolution as a means for God to have used in the diversity and relationships of living things.

The evidence you speak of must be fossils and dating, is that correct? I am convinced that life started with God as the Creator. Looking at the evidence such as the universe, electrons, water, etc., I see no other way these things could have come about except from a "higher source," and by that I mean a meaningful, intelligent source. Thinking about the universe itself is scary enough, then going on to a cell or two burgeoning to things like plants and animals is also mind-boggling to the point of no answer. Whether a person understands it or not, that in itself is a form of proof of -- a Higher Power not understood in its fullness by man. And although we are living through a pandemic, there is much to say about life on the earth being threatened in many different ways.

 

[YoursTrue]

Underwater cities? The Bible talks about underwater cities? What does the Bible say about underwater cities and how has the claims written there been verified?

It is pretty much assured that climate change will lead to significant increases in sea level, leaving many (maybe all) coastal communities flooded. Of course, that is all based on evidence following theory that has no proof and never will.

No, to my knowledge the Bible does not talk about underwater cities. Secular research does that.

 

[YoursTrue]

Underwater cities? The Bible talks about underwater cities? What does the Bible say about underwater cities and how has the claims written there been verified?

It is pretty much assured that climate change will lead to significant increases in sea level, leaving many (maybe all) coastal communities flooded. Of course, that is all based on evidence following theory that has no proof and never will.

Goodnight for now. Time to pack it up, my body is telling me I gotta go to sleep.