Let's see if we can figure this out about the old Piltdown Man

[YoursTrue]

Wise decision.

ciao

- viole

There are some things that are too delicate to go into and fight over, sometimes I opt out. ciao.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution has been tested? How so?

With every fossil ever found.
With every genome ever sequenced.

Can you please show a test where one form such as a dinosaur becomes a bird?

Birds ARE dinosaurs, just like humans and cats are mammals.
ie: it's impossible to come up with a definition for "dinosaur" which includes ALL known dinosaurs, yet excludes birds - without arbitrarily adding "...but not birds".

Same goes for mammals and humans and cats.
If you come up with a definition of "mammal" that includes ALL known mammals, humans are automatically included.

In other words, dinosaurs never "changed" into birds. Birds ARE dinosaurs and always have been. And always will be.

Of course, there's always that Unknown Common Ancestor theory. Still to be determined, right?

The "identity" is still to be determined (and likely never will be determined).
But that a common ancestor existed, has been determined and established a long time ago through DNA.

I do not think, imagine, or believe, that interbreeding foxes and dogs by force, or changing skin colors in humans is evolution. But if you think it confirms the theory, best to you. It's ok. I no longer do.

Your problem is that you hold a strawman version of evolution in your head.
This is why you don't recognize change, as predicted by the actual theory of evolution, as being evolution literally in action.

This is your problem. Not a problem of biology.

 

[viole]

There are some things that are too delicate to go into and fight over, sometimes I opt out. ciao.

Yes, they are so delicate they might break. I understand. I would do the same if I tried to protect fragile things

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

But they have been and still are at times.
Also God reveals himself in a multitude of other ways to those whose hearts are open to him.

Great, so my question stands, where can I view an angel? How can we observe and measure them so that we know they are there and we're not just wishing they were there?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution has been tested? How so? Can you please show a test where one form such as a dinosaur becomes a bird? Of course, there's always that Unknown Common Ancestor theory. Still to be determined, right? I do not think, imagine, or believe, that interbreeding foxes and dogs by force, or changing skin colors in humans is evolution. But if you think it confirms the theory, best to you. It's ok. I no longer do.

This has been presented to you endless times. There are mountains of evidence collected by multiple independent groups of scientists across the globe over 160+ years. You know this, because I've typed it to you several times before.

You are being a dishonest interlocuter. It's not a good look.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It is like ESP. Works only if you are not skeptical about it.

Ciao

- viole

Well, close-minded people aren't probably as likely to experience miracles.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Exactly what my Muslim friend told me. Should I believe him?

Ciao

- viole

He's not wrong about that.

 

[viole]

Well, close-minded people aren't probably as likely to experience miracles.

I bet. They would if they were objectively obvious.

ciao

- viole

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, they are so delicate they might break. I understand. I would do the same if I tried to protect fragile things

Ciao

- viole

That's why not all will understand or get it. I can't ask you I won't ask you if "you see"? Ciao.

 

[YoursTrue]

The "made up stuff", i.e. the theory goes back to 10⁻⁴³ seconds. We are talking about real observations, support for the theories, like the CMB. It is real, we can measure it. No baloney.
The CMB occurred at about 380.000 years and we can't see further with usual telescopes. But we may see more with gravitational wave detectors. No Baloney.

Yes ham on rye.

 

[YoursTrue]

I bet. They would if they were objectively obvious.

ciao

- viole

Life is a miracle. Not all see that either.

 

[YoursTrue]

Exactly what my Muslim friend told me. Should I believe him?

Ciao

- viole

The heart is involved. And like evolution, there should be no problem with an end

 

[YoursTrue]

The problem with opening your heart (assuming you do not mean the blood pump), is that anyone can enter. If you were born in Jemen, Allah would enter. If you were born in Ancient Greece, Apollo and Zeus would enter. etc. Ergo, opening your heart is hardly a reliable epistemology.

Ciao

- viole

That is true about being inculcated and born in a particular environment. I do not believe God owes anyone life.

 

[ppp]

Well, close-minded people aren't probably as likely to experience miracles.

Why not? What does being closed-munded have to do with experiencing miracles?

 

[YoursTrue]

Can you please show a test where one form such as a dinosaur becomes a bird?
Take the time to study and comprehend the Genome Project. The DNA evidence shows this quite clearly.

For further answers to your questions:

https://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/Bulletins/ED15/01_nature.html

Go to the section marked Understanding Evolution.

Ok I looked and I quote from the article: "Evolutionary biologists, from paleontologists to molecular geneticists, try to determine the precise sequence of life's history and which species are most closely related to one another. Thus, the study of evolution involves historical science. Evolutionary biologists, however, also try to determine the mechanisms that govern how life evolves. These mechanisms include natural selection, chance factors, and various constraints on the way life evolves. That is why the study of evolution also involves experimental science. We can test some of the mechanisms of evolution in the lab by studying bacteria, flies, or mice over many generations and watching how they evolve over months or years in controlled experiments. Many similar natural experiments have been conducted over many millions of years, and their results are recorded in the fossil record of ancient life."
------------
My comment: mice and flies do NOT, I repeat not, become anything but mice and flies no matter what experiment is done and how many generations, mutations or selective breeding is done. If I'm substantively wrong as shown by experiments, please inform. Thanks.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Ok I looked and I quote from the article: "Evolutionary biologists, from paleontologists to molecular geneticists, try to determine the precise sequence of life's history and which species are most closely related to one another. Thus, the study of evolution involves historical science. Evolutionary biologists, however, also try to determine the mechanisms that govern how life evolves. These mechanisms include natural selection, chance factors, and various constraints on the way life evolves. That is why the study of evolution also involves experimental science. We can test some of the mechanisms of evolution in the lab by studying bacteria, flies, or mice over many generations and watching how they evolve over months or years in controlled experiments. Many similar natural experiments have been conducted over many millions of years, and their results are recorded in the fossil record of ancient life."
------------
My comment: mice and flies do NOT, I repeat not, become anything but mice and flies no matter what experiment is done and how many generations, mutations or selective breeding is done. If I'm substantively wrong as shown by experiments, please inform. Thanks.

Have humans in the hundreds of years they've been doing experiments conducted an experiment that takes hundreds of millions of years to conduct? Obviously not. But of course:

Many similar natural experiments have been conducted over many millions of years, and their results are recorded in the fossil record of ancient life

And I would add, now that the Genome Project has been completed, recorded in the DNA evidence as well. The evidence is quite clear. Over the course of billions of years simple life forms have evolved into more complex life forms. Science doesn't have to be able to directly observe something in order to gather information about it.

The Theory of Continental Drift indicates that at one point the Earth's land masses were virtually a single land mass and over billions of years due to shifts in the tectonic plates the continental land masses that we know today formed. No one has ever witnessed this drifting of continental mass, yet the scientific method has been able to verify enough evidence to conclude that this is almost certainly what happened.

Heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe. No one has ever actually witnessed the Earth orbiting the sun, but we've still been able to gather sufficient evidence to conclude that this is almost certainly the case. Just because no one has witnessed a process that takes millions of years to occur doesn't mean that science isn't capable of gathering legitimate evidence concerning that process.

 

[Heyo]

My comment: mice and flies do NOT, I repeat not, become anything but mice and flies no matter what experiment is done and how many generations, mutations or selective breeding is done. If I'm substantively wrong as shown by experiments, please inform. Thanks.

You are substantively wrong in the assumption that the ToE says anything else. You already agree with the ToE in that respect, mice will always give birth to mice and flies will always lay fly eggs from which fly maggots will emerge. The ToE would be wrong if it predicted anything else.
You are fighting windmills.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have humans in the hundreds of years they've been doing experiments conducted an experiment that takes hundreds of millions of years to conduct? Obviously not. But of course:

Many similar natural experiments have been conducted over many millions of years, and their results are recorded in the fossil record of ancient life

And I would add, now that the Genome Project has been completed, recorded in the DNA evidence as well. The evidence is quite clear. Over the course of billions of years simple life forms have evolved into more complex life forms. Science doesn't have to be able to directly observe something in order to gather information about it.

The Theory of Continental Drift indicates that at one point the Earth's land masses were virtually a single land mass and over billions of years due to shifts in the tectonic plates the continental land masses that we know today formed. No one has ever witnessed this drifting of continental mass, yet the scientific method has been able to verify enough evidence to conclude that this is almost certainly what happened.

Heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe. No one has ever actually witnessed the Earth orbiting the sun, but we've still been able to gather sufficient evidence to conclude that this is almost certainly the case. Just because no one has witnessed a process that takes millions of years to occur doesn't mean that science isn't capable of gathering legitimate evidence concerning that process.

The continuum of genomes regarding "similar natural experiments" conducted over "many millions of years" -- what? -- have not been ascertained or verified. Claims obviously are made, but -- no experimentation can solve this conundrum. In other words, the observation of the links of GENOMES are m-i-s-s-i-n-g. Perhaps you can show otherwise, and I'll reverse that statement to say, "Oh, yes! The next step showing evolution of genomes and dna is there..." To be clear, to the best of what I have read, the "missing link" connecting the so-called "natural evolution" of humans, bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas from something is simply not there. It's "missing."

 

[YoursTrue]

You are substantively wrong in the assumption that the ToE says anything else. You already agree with the ToE in that respect, mice will always give birth to mice and flies will always lay fly eggs from which fly maggots will emerge. The ToE would be wrong if it predicted anything else.
You are fighting windmills.

Hardly. At least you agree that mice remain mice no matter how long their legs grow. They don't become horses or lions so far.
"The common ancestor to mice and humans was an inconspicuous rodent-like mammal that scurried along the surface of the earth some 65 million years (myr) before present (BP)." 2.2 WHERE DO MICE COME FROM?.
So mice and humans supposedly have a "common ancestor" in the form of an "inconspicuous rodent-like mammal," according to that assessment. And over 65 mllions years ago they say. (lol about the timing.)
And then there's "the RODENT that lived in China 160m years ago. A mouse-like creature that scurried about in bushes and trees 160 million years ago gave rise to humans, say scientists. The small, furry placental mammal lived in what is now north east China during the Jurassic era when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.Aug 25, 2011"
We all evolved from rodent that lived in China 160m years ago

My, oh my, one says 65 million years, another says 160 million years ago -- rodents to humans!!!!

And now there's more -- with "about" the same number of genes.
"The genome analysis, by 20 institutions from six countries, showed that humans, rats and mice have about the same number of genes."
(Doesn't mean they evolved by "natural" or "forced" selection. And now it's a common ancestor about 80 million years ago.
" It also reveals that humans and rodents went our separate ways from a common ancestor about 80 million years ago, with rats and mice diverging between 12 and 24 million years ago.Mar 31, 2004"

Rat genome reveals supercharged evolution | New Scientist

Truly I'm beginning to think it's all a bunch of rodent droppings.

 

[YoursTrue]

Have humans in the hundreds of years they've been doing experiments conducted an experiment that takes hundreds of millions of years to conduct? Obviously not. But of course:

Many similar natural experiments have been conducted over many millions of years, and their results are recorded in the fossil record of ancient life

And I would add, now that the Genome Project has been completed, recorded in the DNA evidence as well. The evidence is quite clear. Over the course of billions of years simple life forms have evolved into more complex life forms. Science doesn't have to be able to directly observe something in order to gather information about it.

The Theory of Continental Drift indicates that at one point the Earth's land masses were virtually a single land mass and over billions of years due to shifts in the tectonic plates the continental land masses that we know today formed. No one has ever witnessed this drifting of continental mass, yet the scientific method has been able to verify enough evidence to conclude that this is almost certainly what happened.

Heliocentrism is the astronomical model in which the Earth and planets revolve around the Sun at the center of the Universe. No one has ever actually witnessed the Earth orbiting the sun, but we've still been able to gather sufficient evidence to conclude that this is almost certainly the case. Just because no one has witnessed a process that takes millions of years to occur doesn't mean that science isn't capable of gathering legitimate evidence concerning that process.

I agree that fossils can reflect animals and objects from many, many years ago. But there is far more evidence that the earth orbits the sun than mice eventually evolved by natural selection and/or survival of the fittest to become humans.