Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. I have not been dishonest about this. You may think so, but that is your right to believe what you want. If I saw an explanation that shows evolution is absolutely true without doubt in conjunction as well with what their religious belief claims linkage between the Bible and evolution, I'd believe it. But there is no absolute verification of differences among plant and animal life having evolved. And that's where I leave it now.

How would you know? Seriously, you have almost zero understanding of any of the sciences. You need to be honest with yourself and admit that scientists could show evolution to be true, but you would not be able to tell.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not true. I have not been dishonest about this. You may think so, but that is your right to believe what you want. If I saw an explanation that shows evolution is absolutely true without doubt in conjunction as well with what their religious belief claims linkage between the Bible and evolution, I'd believe it. But there is no absolute verification of differences among plant and animal life having evolved. And that's where I leave it now.

That is apparently not possible for any version of true, including yours. So in effect if that is the case you use a double standard.
So please explain what absolutely true is.

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you know? Seriously, you have almost zero understanding of any of the sciences. You need to be honest with yourself and admit that scientists could show evolution to be true, but you would not be able to tell.

I've read the arguments claiming evolution is true and tested. So I hate to say this again -- and it's been an interesting discussion back and forth and watching the insults fly sometimes -- there really is no proof -- there really is no evidence beyond fossils that are claimed to fit in (of course not 'prove') with the theory. Meantime, I was seeing a report of a gorilla who used cloths given to him by zookeepers to put under his feet to walk on muddy grounds. I was wondering about animal feet. Who knows, maybe gorillas will develop genes enabling them to sew cloth together to make shoes. But I know you have things to do, and so do I, so will say good night/good morning.

 

[YoursTrue]

That is apparently not possible for any version of true, including yours. So in effect if that is the case you use a double standard.
So please explain what absolutely true is.

lol. lol...if you ask me why i'm laughing, I'll try to explain maybe tomorrow. But when a comedian makes a joke and people laugh, can they always explain why they laugh?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

lol. lol...if you ask me why i'm laughing, I'll try to explain maybe tomorrow. But when a comedian makes a joke and people laugh, can they always explain why they laugh?

Well, you can laugh all you like, but what that has to do with absolute truth, is for you to show as that is your standard. So please live up to that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read the arguments claiming evolution is true and tested. So I hate to say this again -- and it's been an interesting discussion back and forth and watching the insults fly sometimes -- there really is no proof -- there really is no evidence beyond fossils that are claimed to fit in (of course not 'prove') with the theory. Meantime, I was seeing a report of a gorilla who used cloths given to him by zookeepers to put under his feet to walk on muddy grounds. I was wondering about animal feet. Who knows, maybe gorillas will develop genes enabling them to sew cloth together to make shoes. But I know you have things to do, and so do I, so will say good night/good morning.

You are terribly wrong. One huge problem is that you still refuse to take the time to learn what is and is not evidence. The DNA evidence is a slam dunk for evolution. And there is much much more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've read the arguments claiming evolution is true and tested. So I hate to say this again -- and it's been an interesting discussion back and forth and watching the insults fly sometimes -- there really is no proof -- there really is no evidence beyond fossils that are claimed to fit in (of course not 'prove') with the theory. Meantime, I was seeing a report of a gorilla who used cloths given to him by zookeepers to put under his feet to walk on muddy grounds. I was wondering about animal feet. Who knows, maybe gorillas will develop genes enabling them to sew cloth together to make shoes. But I know you have things to do, and so do I, so will say good night/good morning.

I need absolute proof without any doubt that you are you. So to me, unless I get the proof, then you are not you, because there is no absolute proof without doubt.

 

[PureX]

What some who post do not comprehend is that I do NOT DENY SCIENCE. I do not, however, respect the idea that changes happen across the board from the start of life on earth due to the unintelligent process ascribed by how facts, such as DNA and cellular processes, are considered. As if there is no basic superior intelligent power behind it all.

What puzzles me is that you can't seem to grasp the possibility that both are true. That those natural processes that result in the evolution of life forms exist as the result of the intelligence being expressed throughout the whole existential design. That word "design" will of course trigger the scientism crowd into a frenzy of vitriol but the fact is that it's what their demigods of science are studying. So they can't hardly deny that it is evident. (They will anyway, but that shows how irrational scisntism has become,)

 

[exchemist]

Not true. I have not been dishonest about this. You may think so, but that is your right to believe what you want. If I saw an explanation that shows evolution is absolutely true without doubt in conjunction as well with what their religious belief claims linkage between the Bible and evolution, I'd believe it. But there is no absolute verification of differences among plant and animal life having evolved. And that's where I leave it now.

Ballocks.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I officially give up trying to understand your claim and will ignore it as nonsense from now on.

I doubt your 10% figure, seems way to high but I have no idea and as far as I recall have not ever seen any research into it.

As to why they don't.... size differences, would be a waste of time as the offspring would be infertile even if they managed to successfully breed, tribalism... most animals including us humans prefer our own kind.

You might try the ignore function. I hardly ever, but finally did in a couple of cases where I determined that trying to engage in a rational dialogue was a wasted effort.

 

[exchemist]

Furthermore, I don't know if you're an atheist, but doesn't really matter. Because I wonder also as to how some people believe they can talk to dead persons and how they figure God or nature fits in with any of this, if you do.

If you read through the Biologos article I have linked, and if you then respond with thoughtful comments that show you (i) understand it, even if you disagree with it, and, (ii) acknowledge this is a mainstream Christian view, not something you can just ridicule out of hand, then we may, just possibly, have something I am prepared to talk about further with you.

This article, incidentally, was not written by “an atheist”. This is not about me, but about mainstream Christian thought.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you read through the Biologos article I have linked, and if you then respond with thoughtful comments that show you (i) understand it, even if you disagree with it, and, (ii) acknowledge this is a mainstream Christian view, not something you can just ridicule out of hand, then we may, just possibly, have something I am prepared to talk about further with you.

This article, incidentally, was not written by “an atheist”. This is not about me, but about mainstream Christian thought.

Biologos is a very useful site because it shows that accepting evolution is mainstream Christianity. I have had Christians use quotes from Francis Crick at times in odd attempts to try to refute evolution. A quick link to Biologos shows them that they did not understand their own quote (which was usually quote mined).

 

[exchemist]

Biologos is a very useful site because it shows that accepting evolution is mainstream Christianity. I have had Christians use quotes from Francis Crick at times in odd attempts to try to refute evolution. A quick link to Biologos shows them that they did not understand their own quote (which was usually quote mined).

I chose it because it is not associated with any particular Christian denomination, thereby sidestepping one of the ways that the more tribally minded sects can avoid dealing with the ideas.

(Not that there will be any actual JWs contributing to Biologos of course. After all, the contributors will mostly have benefitted from further education, something the JWs discourage:https://www.npr.org/2017/02/19/5105...ms-and-low-income-for-many-jehovahs-witnesses )

 

[gnostic]

I've read the arguments claiming evolution is true and tested. So I hate to say this again -- and it's been an interesting discussion back and forth and watching the insults fly sometimes -- there really is no proof -- there really is no evidence beyond fossils that are claimed to fit in (of course not 'prove') with the theory.

you are still playing the stubborn ignorant card.

the majority of biologists in this world, are not paleontologists. Most of them have never studied fossils.

The majority of biologists only focused on living and extant species, and in molecular biology and modern genetic testing have shown that genera & species seemed to be different, are actually related to each other, thereby indicating common ancestors and they belong to same family, order, class, etc, are more than probable.

fossils are just only one aspect of evidence that biology look for, but more persuasive evidence actually from other aspects of evidence, by implementing molecular biology, particularly in genome research and DNA comparisons.

from your claim, you are only focusing on fossil, meanwhile you are completely ignoring other available evidence. That’s just plain ignorant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

you are still playing the stubborn ignorant card.

the majority of biologists in this world, are not paleontologists. Most of them have never studied fossils.

The majority of biologists only focused on living and extant species, and in molecular biology and modern genetic testing have shown that genera & species seemed to be different, are actually related to each other, thereby indicating common ancestors and they belong to same family, order, class, etc, are more than probable.

fossils are just only one aspect of evidence that biology look for, but more persuasive evidence actually from other aspects of evidence, by implementing molecular biology, particularly in genome research and DNA comparisons.

from your claim, you are only focusing on fossil, meanwhile you are completely ignoring other available evidence. That’s just plain ignorant.

I constantly point out to creationists that no only are fossils not the only evidence for evolution. They are not even the best evidence for evolution. They are merely the easiest evidence for an absolute amateur to see and understand. Show a creationist an article about ERV's and they will not have a clue.

 

[YoursTrue]

you are still playing the stubborn ignorant card.

the majority of biologists in this world, are not paleontologists. Most of them have never studied fossils.

The majority of biologists only focused on living and extant species, and in molecular biology and modern genetic testing have shown that genera & species seemed to be different, are actually related to each other, thereby indicating common ancestors and they belong to same family, order, class, etc, are more than probable.

fossils are just only one aspect of evidence that biology look for, but more persuasive evidence actually from other aspects of evidence, by implementing molecular biology, particularly in genome research and DNA comparisons.

from your claim, you are only focusing on fossil, meanwhile you are completely ignoring other available evidence. That’s just plain ignorant.

Not so. I did a little research about this and find comments by some very interesting. I'll get back to this when I have more time.

 

[John53]

This has nothing to do with being bitter as far as I am concerned. But from my experience here so far many people are simply absolutely more than reluctant to explain how they relegate belief in God (claiming they belong to a religion linked to the Bible) and also believing in the theory of evolution. What I have found is that they call the Bible a book of myths yet go to church and claim to believe in God and get upset when asked to explain how that works.

Peoples beliefs differ, it's life/human nature and doesn't bother me in the slightest. There is far worse out there, religions that protect paedophiles, religions that encourage terrorism, religions that split up family and friends... They're the ones I'm wary of.

 

[John53]

That would be one reason, but it seems there may be an even more basic reason: incompatibility of the respective strands of “junk” DNA: Biologists Just Got Closer to The DNA Secrets That Stop Species From Interbreeding

The topic is evidently an area of active research.

Very interesting, thank you.

 

[John53]

OK, I didn't realize that.

NY Times article
By C. Claiborne Ray
April 22, 2013

• Q. Does bird mating ever cross the species line?

A. “Many birds occasionally mate with members of other bird species, producing hybrid offspring,” said Irby J. Lovette, director of the Fuller Evolutionary Biology Program at the Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity.

This might work, not sure:

In fact, Dr. Lovette said, about 10 percent of the world’s 10,000 bird species are known to have bred with another species at least once, either in the wild or in captivity. For example, in the eastern United States, native black ducks have hybridized so often with the more abundant mallard ducks that pure black ducks have become rare.
View attachment 79672
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/science/does-bird-mating-ever-cross-the-…

Does Bird Mating Ever Cross the Species Line? - The New York Times​

Interesting. Introduced Mallards are a problem here too, they breed with our native Pacific Black Ducks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting. Introduced Mallards are a problem here too, they breed with our native Pacific Black Ducks.

I do not know if this is true of all ducks, but male mallard ducks are quite often rapists. Usually two males will pair up and forcibly copulate with a female that already has a mate.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4534287