Grass is advanced.......? What does that make humans?
Grass is actually a rather complex plant. We tend to cut off the top before it gets to its full growth, but grass is a type of flower-bearing plant (an angiosperm). For some types of grass (wheat, rice, barley, etc), we eat the seeds for nutrition.
Humans are also complex. We are animals with vertebrae. Humans also have a complex society, which plants seem to lack.
You honestly believe that single-celled organisms accidentally transformed themselves into all the complex lifeforms that have ever existed? And you think we believe in fairy stories?
Not in a single generation, they didn't. Not even in a few thousands of generations. But yes. We even have living representatives of what most of the steps would look like.
A lot further along in actually creating life you mean? You can't really even define it. Life can only be transmitted from pre-existing life. It cannot spontaneously pop into existence, any more than the universe could.
Life is a complex system of chemical reactions that maintains inner environment, has a genetic system and reproduction to forms that also maintain inner state. We have been able to create systems that maintain inner environment, have a genetic system, and reproduce, but the 'children' still tend to decompose after a generation.
What you seem to ignore is that life is a chemical process. There isn't a 'life-force' that has to be found and introduced to make something alive. There is nothing 'special' that gets passed on from one generation to the next that makes the next generation alive. There are chemicals in complex structures that reproduce themselves.
There is no 'spontaneously popping into existence'. There is a build-up of the necessary chemicals and structures to allow for reproduction. Once reproduction with a genetic system is obtained that maintains consistency through generations, you have life.
Show us the evidence for beneficial mutations. You are the ones who claimed that they happened....literally billions of them, and since most mutations are detrimental and rarely beneficial, you again have to rely on pure supposition to prop up your theory.
First, whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on the environment. A mutation for a white coat would be beneficial in a snow-covered environment for hiding, but would not be so good in a different environment.
Most mutations (genetic changes) are *neutral*. They have very little effect one way or the other. A few are quite harmful. And a few are beneficial. But the vast majority have very little effect at all. So your claim that most mutations are harmful is simply false.
But, for example, we know of cases where genes are duplicated, which adds to the amount of protein produced and even *that* can be beneficial. A very simple mutation with positive benefit. But, after such duplication, the two different genetic sites can change independently of each other, producing new proteins. We see this in the differences between the different types of hemoglobin and myoglobin. That is an increase in information (which your side often claims is impossible or unlikely). But this is quite far from being the only case of this: serine proteases are another huge category showing the same phenomenon. The mutations allowed new types of proteins to be split during digestion (or in other situations).
But you have no proof that they were not individually created......scientists make the fossils say what they want to hear.
Many different species in many different places, always 'created' to be similar to those previously existing species and in the same locations.
You can claim divine intervention at each and every stage, but that is no different than the claim that no science is actually possible because God re-creates the cosmos from each instant to the next to be however he wants. So no actual physical laws exist.
I call BS.
Just because you have fossil evidence that species appeared to change....doesn't mean that you have proof for what facilitated the change. Supposition can go either way.
Once you have the fact that species changed, you have evolution. After that, the question is what 'facilitated' that change, in other words, finding the mechanism of evolution. But the changes show evolution happened.
It could well have been the Creator making a new model of one he wanted to tweak. You have to lose the big magic wizard in the sky image.....that is not who the Creator is. No one really knows "what" the Creator is....only "who" he is and what he has "done", according to the written records he supplied. You can choose not to believe them if you wish. It makes no difference to me.
So there is no way to test your hypothesis of a creator. That makes it non-scientific.
I prefer to base my beliefs on the evidence of the real world and not on the mythology of people 2000 years ago and more.
yes, each new species *could* be a 'tweak' by a designer. But that, given the number of times such intervention is required and the nature of that intervention according to the evidence, is simply being silly. You can also claim that planets orbit the sun because God chooses to make them move in a way that simulates a law of gravity.
If that is the tact you take, then you are a fanatic that has no hope of learning the truth.
You need more evidence than what you have produced to date because that is only enough to convince the converted. It doesnt take much more than suggestion and an assurance that the evidence is "overwhelming"...it isn't.
People will always believe what they want to believe....and with very little evidence. We just have to understand that it is a choice between two "belief" systems.
The difference is that your belief system has very little evidence and the facts discovered by science have mountains of evidence.
But, yes, it is your choice. if you are convinced by the mythology, then go for it. Just don't expect anyone else to think you sane for doing so.
Or a third option, that what adapted, adapted and what was created was created.....in any case, none of them are the result of macro-evolution. These species stayed within their genus. Not one was found outside of it. It is difficult to tell what genus most of these ancient fossils belonged to anyway. There are no certainties, so why present your case as if it was a foregone conclusion?
Because, for example, we have fossils showing the transitions from reptile to mammal, from fish to amphibian, from dinosaurs to bird, from creodont to carnivore, etc. Yes, there are gaps. But each new fossil partly fills the gaps. Yes, we can imagine divine intervention at each and every stage, or we can admit that living htings reproduce and change over time, leading to new species and genera.
How do you know there isn't? Where do we get our moral sense from? Why do we alone have a conscience?
We are a social species. Other species *do* have a sense of fairness and of conscience.
If you have to correct it, it wasn't a true in the first place....so stop contending that evolution is a fact when it clearly isn't.
Science is a process of finding better and better approximations. When new techniques are found to obtain better observations, we often need to modify the ideas to get a better approximation. But the old approximations still work to the degree they were tested.
Biological species change over geological time. That is evolution. The *mechanism* for evolution is still being debated, but mutation and natural selection are certainly part of the mechanism.
Evolution is a fact: species change over time into new genera, etc. That is not in doubt. How and why they change is still not completely known, but is being investigated.
I would argue that some people's interpretation of the Biblical account is what doesn't fit in with the "evidence".
Those species that appeared to drastically change overtime, may well have been special creations. The "mechanism" for evolution is assumed....but there is no way to prove it.
But it is a mechanism we *know* can produce the types of changes we see. So to invoke divine intervention is just being intellectually lazy.
No life has ever been found in our own solar system or any others. The planets that exist may well be just like the earth was before it was prepared to support life. You cannot refute or claim something when there is no way to test it. Has life ever been found anywhere else in the universe but Earth? Not assuming that life "could" or "might" exist.....but actual proof of life anywhere else.
And I agree not know of life anywhere else in the universe. But given how little we have investigated this, it is hardly conclusive. Even 20 years ago, we knew of NO planets around sun-like stars. Now we know of thousands. That means we are *very* early in our investigations.
What has egomania got to do with anything....science is no stranger to egos BTW. What makes you describe this as a backwards planet? To my way of thinking the Creator had to start somewhere.....why not here?
You really have to be kidding here. Our planet is a small planet around a rather ordinary star in a rather ordinary spiral galaxy among billions in the known universe.You invoke a creator for life on this one, small world among the billions and thereby claim we are special in the eyes of that creator. What an ego you have! Far, far more than any scientist attemtping to understand the universe around us!
Just because you call it mythology, doesn't make it so. All ancient mythilogies I believe have a basis in fact. They have no doubt been embellished by some over time, but there is a thin thread of truth in many of them.
All mythologies have a basis in the hopes and dreams of the people who made them up. They are stories people tell themselves so they don't need to think deeper.
Perhaps delusion could be the problem with evolutionists too....how would you know?
Through testing. That is how science works. Eliminate the false and see what is left over.
) are two different animals