My advice remains the same... Google the definition of ToE.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not only Natural Laws but Rules of Evolution?
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
My advice remains the same... Google the definition of ToE.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Why? Let me guess...because gorillas have about 99% more or less of the same DNA as humans? You mean that kind of proof?
No because they don't and no because it's very strong evidence not proof.
Meanwhile, the combination of religion and belief in evolution is tackled by some with reasonable responses.Another time.
Oh of course.... someone who'll agree with you and justify your witch hunt?
ppp
Well-Known Member
It's hard to take your position seriously when you don't understand evolution well enough to accurately represent the science.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It has been explained to you many times in many ways. Do not blame others when so many people have tried to help you.Don't trust me, why should you? But I have googled it many times. Asked many questions. Guess it's kinda hard for you to explain in your own words, although the study of cells and molecules, including brain structure can be detailed, requiring a lot of research. there's more, I'll wait. Thanks. Meanwhile, the combination of religion and belief in evolution is tackled by some with reasonable responses.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You mean evidence I hope. That is only a small part of it.
You need to look up and understand the concept of "Nested hierarchies". We observe these in all life. Evolution explains it. Creationists have no valid explanation for that observation.
gnostic
The Lost One
@gnostic - . It has been said, and I do believe the following: that evolution per small changes leading to distinctly different forms is a belief highly defended by many in the scientific community.
So where is observable evidence for what is called macroevolution? You can argue that I'm ignorant, but where is the evidence beyond fossils and conjecture from fossils that fish evolved to apes? Or rather the Unknown Common Denominator of animals called apes. Even while there are similarities in composition, what reason enables you to think that it happened by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"? Since you say I'm ignorant, please explain how you believe that fish definitely evolved to become humans? Was it a group of fish that moved towards the ground, or maybe one fish, or maybe two fishes?
There really is no such thing macroevolution or microevolution, it is just evolution with different possible mechanisms. But that's not important.
What is important is that speciation that you "believe" to occur Evolution, don't exist. No species from one family will just magically turn into another species of completely different family. Only ignorant creationists such nonsensical and ignorant claim of Evolution, because they really don’t understand how Evolution works.
Fishes don't turn into apes or into humans, no biologists are making this ridiculous claims, just you are.
I don't see complaining about Genesis myth, where Adam was created from dust, which is even more ridiculous. No amount of non-living dust can be shaped, forming a fully grown human. That's just fairytale that exist in other ancient myths, such as using clay to create into humans, nonsensical as Adam's creation.
The only way possible for Adam to be created from dust or soil, is through magic, but magic don't exist. If you think transformation of dust to human being possible, then you might as well as believe in Professor Dumbledore and his Hogwarts School.
You should stay out of making nonsensical assumptions about fossils, since you are clearly biology-illiterate, and frequently making claims are often misinformed.
If you really want to understand Evolution and speciation, then you really you need to understand molecular biology and the testing of living species, without the needs for fossils.
What I am referring to about molecular biology, is about molecular genetic testing, RNA or DNA testing or comparison between species.
Since you cannot grasp that humans are biologically classified as primates and apes, I will give a different example, and hopefully you will understand the importance of genomes between species, and their relationship to each other.
the example is the horse and rhinoceros. Now, I don’t care to over-complicate the various species and subspecies of rhinoceroses (4 species) & horses (eg wild horse, domesticated horse), because that will make my post too long.
What you need to know is that “horse” isn’t really species, nor is “rhinoceros”. These are actually individual taxon - “genus”. So genus Equus for all equine species, and there are currently four extant & living species of genus Rhinoceros.
Both genera have their own respective families (family Equidae and family Rhinocerotidae).
Now, they are of different families, so while they have only few similarities (both large herbivorous mammals), they don’t look much alike. But two things make them have something in common: physically their hooves and molecularly their DNAs.
Now, there are many other mammals that are herbivorous and hoofed, eg cow, pig, giraffes, deers, antelopes, camels, llamas, hippopotamus, etc. However, these animals I have just listed have something in common, they have even numbered of toes that support their weight, eg 2 or 4 toes, hence these mammals are referred to as even-toed ungulate or the order Artiodactyla, while the horses and rhinoceroses are referred to as odd-toed ungulate or the order Perrisodactyla.
Rhinoceros stand on 3-toed hooves, while horses walk one-toed hooves. Actually, if we do looked fossils of earlier ancestors to horses, which not only much smaller in size, but they originally had 5 toes, and over time, equine-like descendants had 3 toes, before the current species with one-toed hooves.
But what’s more compelling evidence are their DNAs. The DNA of all equine species are closer to those of rhinoceros than to cow or to deer.
What you don’t seem to understand (like every other creationists at RF) is that speciation always occurred at species-level, not at genus-level, family-level, order-level , etc. You cannot jump from order to different order, or from family to different family, but these hierarchical taxon, do allow biologists to group them based on shared physical characteristics, or at the molecular level, through their DNA.
I really do hoped that you understand my examples on speciation, through physical traits and molecular genetic analysis (DNA comparisons) are just as important as biological evidence than evidence relying on fossils.
Again, your intentional ignorance of evolution based on an ancient religious agenda is glaringly apparent. Reading the sources referenced and the basic references on evolution will answer your questions, without your cracked record repeated objections which are meaningless.@gnostic - . It has been said, and I do believe the following: that evolution per small changes leading to distinctly different forms is a belief highly defended by many in the scientific community.
So where is observable evidence for what is called macroevolution? You can argue that I'm ignorant, but where is the evidence beyond fossils and conjecture from fossils that fish evolved to apes? Or rather the Unknown Common Denominator of animals called apes. Even while there are similarities in composition, what reason enables you to think that it happened by "natural selection" or "survival of the fittest"? Since you say I'm ignorant, please explain how you believe that fish definitely evolved to become humans? Was it a group of fish that moved towards the ground, or maybe one fish, or maybe two fishes?
Oh yes! I do not trust an ancient religious agenda based on an intentional ignorance of science and cracked records meaningless incoherent postsDon't trust me, why should you? But I have googled it many times. Asked many questions. Guess it's kinda hard for you to explain in your own words, although the study of cells and molecules, including brain structure can be detailed, requiring a lot of research. there's more, I'll wait. Thanks. Meanwhile, the combination of religion and belief in evolution is tackled by some with reasonable responses.
Yes, once born a bird, it will remain one until it dies. And it will have had avian parents and offspring. What else would it be?
Why do you think that's relevant? It seems that you consider this an argument against evolution. If so, it's not. Those facts are either consistent with the theory or predicted by it.
Simply avoid using the word proof when referring to scientific inductions like scientific laws and scientific theories. These ideas make predictions, which can be confirmed, but it can never be proven that they won't fail eventually however many times it has made correct predictions. Courtrooms use the phrase "proven beyond reasonable doubt," but that's a different usage of the word. Also, in the phrase "burden of proof." Neither of these usages mean proof beyond doubt, so it's reasonable to call them examples of a second definition of the word.
I agree with you. According to Abrahamic doctrine, man was made in God's image, which implies intent and a directed process. As you note, the theory describes a process that proceeds automatically without intelligent oversight.
If by "god" you mean the Abrahamic god, an interventionist god unlike the deist god, for example, to be consistent, one can imagine that God is directing the process whether Darwin and others can discern that or not. In effect, they're saying that the theory is incomplete, and that not all genetic variation is undirected.
This is incorrect.
I suggested to you earlier that you reconsider offering yourself as a competent judge in these matters. I presume that you are trying to say that no such evidence exists rather than that you can't see or interpret the evidence that others can, but you are ALWAYS understood that way. Whenever you make a comment like that, it says that either you haven't learned what there is to learn or that you wear a faith-based confirmation bias that prevents you from seeing it. That can't be your purpose.
I've also recommended that people who believe by faith stop trying to imply that they have empirical support for their beliefs. For starters, it's OK to say that you believe by faith, not by evidence. That's what people who never see a sound argument in support of a believe conclude anyway, and certainly it is more respectable to appear to be an honest, faith-based thinker who recognizes that about himself than to be seen as somebody who doesn't know himself or is being dishonest with himself and/or others - also not a good look.
If you don't think that that is a good recommendation, why not? Look at all of the rejection you've gotten here for trying to imitate the critical thinkers' arguments with talk of evidence and claims like that birds remain birds. Imagine that all of your answers had been some form of, "I have this compelling intuition that the Bible god exists that I cannot defend and need not defend." What kind of thread would this have been instead, how would your experience of it have been different, and would that be an improvement or not. If you posted something like that to me, my response would have been, "OK, but that's not how I think."
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
From what I read, there are categories considered to be macro vs. micro evolution. Macroevolution: Examples from the Primate World
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you think that you can define "macroevolution"? Please try to do so in your own terms.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There is no witch hunt. Just trying to figure logically how some justify religious belief based on the Bible, more or less considering the practices and beliefs and combine it with the Bible. So far no one really has stepped up to the plate to explain, but -- after all this time I'm getting used to the avoidance as well as the ensuing jokes and insults coming forth. But that's ok, to be expected now and it's been an interesting journey. I appreciate it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a pity that your actions caused at least one Christian that accepts evolution to put you on ignore. If you had not done that you could ask him yourself.
From what you read? You have not cited any scientific journals or recognized scientific journals. Nor have you demonstrated any knowledge of science to justify your assertions.
I've seen several people offer their explanations including myself, you just don't like the answers. And stop with the poor me I'm a martyr act, you are as bad as the rest of us.
gnostic
The Lost One
I gave you a horse-rhinoceros example, that molecular genetic test (DNA comparisons) put closeness between horse and rhinoceros, than horse family to any bovine family (eg cattle, bisons, etc, which are even-toed ungulates), and Equus DNA & Rhinoceros DNA have also justified putting them into taxon group of the order Perrisodactyla based on their physical trait of having odd-toed hooves.
Another genus, the Tapirus, with 4 living species, also belong into the Perrisodactyl (odd-toed ungulate). The tapirs have 3-toed hooves in their hind legs, but their front legs have 4 toes. The tapir’s overall physical appearance looked nothing like the equine species or the rhinoceros species, and yet more than their odd-numbered of toes, like their respective DNAs have verified grouping them into single order.
since they look nothing alike, their DNA, showed that at some points, there were divergences between these 3 families/genera at some points in time, with common ancestors of some extinct species of the Perrisodactyl.
if you want that “macro” evolution for the speciation of Perrisodactyl, then by all means, call it that, but biologists don’t often use macro vs micro. More often en they are used by reporters of some non-peer-reviewed magazines, or used by some unqualified philosophers.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
unrelated:
man, I have a newer model of iPad, and their autocorrect is even worse than my old iPad.
Plus, even when I tap the right suggestion from the list of 3 suggestions, they still managed to muck it up, like not using the suggestion I have picked.
seriously needs to work on these bugs.
man, I have a newer model of iPad, and their autocorrect is even worse than my old iPad.
Plus, even when I tap the right suggestion from the list of 3 suggestions, they still managed to muck it up, like not using the suggestion I have picked.
seriously needs to work on these bugs.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
On an Amazon tablet of mine I disabled the autowrong function.unrelated:
man, I have a newer model of iPad, and their autocorrect is even worse than my old iPad.
Plus, even when I tap the right suggestion from the list of 3 suggestions, they still managed to muck it up, like not using the suggestion I have picked.
seriously needs to work on these bugs.