Proof of evolution -at last-

[YoursTrue]

The theory that we accept now has its basis in works published by Darwin in 1859. I suppose that would be the original text along with all the other original work by scientists on the subject. So, you are incorrect.

Saying it is conjecture over and over and over and over...will not magically make it conjecture.

Yes, but it is conjecture. Fossils do not prove evolution. While this concept may be difficult for some to accept, it is nevertheless true. Similar to the idea that Einstein had trouble accepting the idea that the universe is expanding, but finally had to give way to that idea.

 

[YoursTrue]

I have never appreciated it when fellow Christians have to resort to what amounts to a veiled threat about how they know others are going to end up in the next life. It is my belief that only God knows and to assume otherwise is taking a position unwarranted by scripture.

Fellow Christians? When Rome desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, what do you think about that? Fortunately there is the monument depicting the Romans conquering Jerusalem. But what if there was no monument? Hearsay?

 

[YoursTrue]

What does this mean? What happened to the difference? Do you think it disappeared and now gorillas, bonobos and humans are the same species?

Is that what you got from my reply? Why would gorillas, bonobos and humans be the same species because the genetic difference supposedly "disappeared"? Or said in another way, there is no proof of genetic linking to suggest a completion moving towards another form in that slight bit of 'difference.' There are land animals, there are birds, there are fishes, there are plants. There are fossils. None of this proves that all the differences happened by means of evolution.
Evolution is not that some sheep produce brown or white offspring. That is genetics. That can be controlled and examined pretty well. But there is nothing to show or demonstrate viably that bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans have some "unknown common ancestor."

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Is that what you got from my reply? Why would gorillas, bonobos and humans be the same species because the genetic difference supposedly "disappeared"? Or said in another way, there is no proof of genetic linking to suggest a completion moving towards another form in that slight bit of 'difference.' There are land animals, there are birds, there are fishes, there are plants. There are fossils. None of this proves that all the differences happened by means of evolution.
Evolution is not that some sheep produce brown or white offspring. That is genetics. That can be controlled and examined pretty well. But there is nothing to show or demonstrate viably that bonobos, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans have some "unknown common ancestor."

They are different species because they have different genotypes and phenotypes. If that difference disappeared, as your post stated, then they would be the same species. That makes no sense.

You have no idea what level of difference is required to separate species, so how can you judge this with any reliability or critical analysis?

You are listing one trait and the variability of it within a population. No one denies that this variation exists. But that variation in traits coupled with selection can lead to speciation and has. Even creationist taxonomists accept that.

There is enough evidence to conclude the shared ancestry and that body of evidence is growing. Your denial pretty much exists at the same level it always has regardless of the evidence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Fellow Christians? When Rome desecrated the temple in Jerusalem, what do you think about that? Fortunately there is the monument depicting the Romans conquering Jerusalem. But what if there was no monument? Hearsay?

I have no idea what you are going on about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, but it is conjecture. Fossils do not prove evolution. While this concept may be difficult for some to accept, it is nevertheless true. Similar to the idea that Einstein had trouble accepting the idea that the universe is expanding, but finally had to give way to that idea.

It is science. All you have to address it appears to be denial and a mantra that gets you no where. You asked for original text on the subject and they exist, even though you claimed they do not. Sorry.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is science. All you have to address it appears to be denial and a mantra that gets you no where. You asked for original text on the subject and they exist, even though you claimed they do not. Sorry.

I asked for original text? Original text? You mean like fossils? I never said there are no fossils.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is science. All you have to address it appears to be denial and a mantra that gets you no where. You asked for original text on the subject and they exist, even though you claimed they do not. Sorry.

In the meantime, there is no proof that survival of the fittest also via so-called natural selection is what got the human race and other beings such as gorillas and pigs to where they are today. There is only conjecture.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In the meantime, there is no proof that survival of the fittest also via so-called natural selection is what got the human race and other beings such as gorillas and pigs to where they are today. There is only conjecture.

Once again, you are wrong. There is evidence for natural selection. It has been demonstrated experimentally. How have you missed all this?

By the way, survival of the fittest is not a claim of science. That is a popularized term that is outdated, misplaced and does not describe biological fitness. Didn't you study that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I asked for original text? Original text? You mean like fossils? I never said there are no fossils.

You said text and Darwin's book is a text. It is original and is the basis of the theory. What are you talking about fossils???? It is difficult to follow you. Do you have proof there is no original text? Do you have proof for anything you claim? Applying the same standard that you use, I would say no. You do not. Just mantras and conjecture.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Ok, we have this:

Sciences don’t “PROVE” any hypothesis or theory, they “TEST” the hypothesis or theory with observations of evidence or observations within experiments.

Then we have this:

…why not? Abiogenesis is how life started,

Stated like it’s a fact, i.e., that it’s verified.

Please explain…. exactly how has this claim been tested? (Let alone factual.)

Amazing how this claim has turned into a belief.

 

[gnostic]

Watching some things lately I have come to realize that God has set law and order for the superior authorities in order to maintain a certain degree of peace. But the laws of the countries are not particularly set by God.

Not that I believe these events happened now, but based on what the Bible, "peace" is not something I would associate with your God.

What happened in 1 Samuel 15, where God ordered King Saul via his prophet Samuel, to slaughter every Amalekites, is hardly what I called peaceful, especially when not even women and children were spared, and that’s including “infants”. Samuel said to Saul:

3 "'...Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

The Amalekites weren’t even at war with Israel. The motive for this war was said at the start:

1 Samuel said to Saul, "The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. 2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt...'"

Clearly, the event was referring to the encounter in Moses’ time, not long after the Israelites left Egypt (Exodus 17).

According to Exodus 17, the Amalekites attacked them when the Israelites were in Rephidim (shortly after the miracle of water sprouting from a rock), and the Israelites defeated the Amalekites.

The Amalekites were defeated, and that should have been the end of it.

That event (in Exodus 17) happened 5 generations before David was born. So for God to demand the complete annihilation of the Amalekites in Saul's and Samuel's time, is senseless and barbaric. That God would hold grudges after some hundreds of years, demanding genocide of people for something that this generation of Amalekites didn't do, only depicted a god who is petty, vindictive, tyrannical and vicious.

For ordering unprovoked attack upon the Amalekites, God in 1 Samuel 15 is definitely not a "god of peace". If God was "human", you wouldn't hesitate to say he was being a bloodthirsty and barbaric tyrant.

I could not worship any god, not just the Biblical "God", any god, that could demand that children and infants to be slaughtered.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, but it is conjecture.

Absolutely false, and reflects your intentional ignorance of science and an ancient religious agenda. Misuse of the English language. Check your definition of conjecture.

Fossils do not prove evolution.

Again, again and again science absolutely does not prove anything. This reflects your inexcusable intentional ignorance of science.

While this concept may be difficult for some to accept, it is nevertheless true. Similar to the idea that Einstein had trouble accepting the idea that the universe is expanding, but finally had to give way to that idea.

Despite disagreements among scientists like Einstein's work, when Darwin first prosed the hypothesis for the science of evolution it is now universally accepted by 95%+ of all scientists worldwide.

 

[shunyadragon]

Curious...you say the time frame in the article is misleading? You know this how?

It states that the historical documentation and text of the gospels is known within a few 'decares' of the life of Jesus.
First and above all the historical references are third person accounts of those that believe in Jesus Christ. Josephus was not born until 37 AD. No known early text nor scraps of the Gospels are known to exist before ~200 AD. There are a number of different copies of parts of the gospels that show editing and redating changes.

 

[metis]

Ok, we have this:

Then we have this:

Stated like it’s a fact, i.e., that it’s verified.

Please explain…. exactly how has this claim been tested? (Let alone factual.)

Amazing how this claim has turned into a belief.

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, thus not a "fact". In science, there has to be at least some indication that the hypothesis could be true even though it's not conclusive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, we have this:

Then we have this:

Stated like it’s a fact, i.e., that it’s verified.

Please explain…. exactly how has this claim been tested? (Let alone factual.)

Amazing how this claim has turned into a belief.

A person's opinion or expression about hypothesized or actual phenomena is not a scientific statement. Just as someone posting their claims of biblical interpretation being the final word does not make it so.

I do not know of any reason any of the actual hypotheses that have been published regarding abiogenesis cannot be tested other than we do not currently have enough evidence to conduct the tests. They remain hypotheses. But what an individual chooses to claim based on them is not a statement of science.

 

[gnostic]

Stated like it’s a fact, i.e., that it’s verified.

Please explain…. exactly how has this claim been tested? (Let alone factual.)

Amazing how this claim has turned into a belief.

Why do you do that to yourself?

You say and claim something that only make you sounds clueless on the subject you are arguing against.

Abiogenesis is not Evolution. This thread is about Evolution, not Abiogenesis, so why do you bring up Abiogenesis in which you have no idea of what you are talking about?

And Abiogenesis is still ongoing model/work, and it's a working hypothesis.

Plus, Abiogenesis isn't just about how life began.

Every single extinct and extant organisms are made of cells. And every cells made out of organic matters, or more precisely biological macromolecules.

One of the areas that Abiogenesis focused on how these biological macromolecules formed from inorganic matters or inorganic chemicals.

There are 3 biological macromolecules are essential to every cells, whether it be prokaryotic cells (eg bacteria, archaea) or eukaryotic cells (eg animals, plants, fungi):

1. proteins (made of chain of amino acids)
   
2. nucleic acids (eg DNA, RNA)
3. carbohydrates (the sources of energy, of which there are many types)

Scientists researching Abiogenesis, try to investigate how each of these organic matters exist, via chemical reaction from possible inorganic matters that might have exist when the Earth was young. These matters have to exist before cells can exist, and before life exist. Without these macromolecules, life is not possible.

Hence, one of the earliest and successful experiments, was the Miller-Urey experiment in 1952, where they detected in 11 types out of the 20 natural amino acids, after chemical reaction of the following chemicals: water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen. They used electrodes and applied electric current to stimulate lightning, to cause the chemical reaction.

A number of other experiments were done in the decades to follow, using different inorganic chemicals that may have exist primitive Earth's atmosphere at the time (eg hydrogen cyanide, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen, etc) to produce amino acids, as well as components of nucleic acids (eg adenine, from Joan Oro's experiment in 1961), as well as carbohydrates (eg ribose sugar, is one of the component in RNA).

Of course, not every experiments were successful, but the ones that, are "evidence" that organic matters can form from inorganic matters.

Then, let's not forget that 1969's Murchison Meteorite, scientists discovered many types of organic matters inside the meteorite, which is evidence that organic matters can form in other astronomical objects.

Yes, Abiogenesis may still be a hypothesis, but the evidence is far more than what any creationists (YEC & ID) have done.

Intelligent Design have not present a single experiment or any evidence to support their premise that the Designer exist. All ID creationists were ever able to do, was introduce silly analogies. Analogies are not evidence. Those idiots from Discovery Institute have not demonstrated the existence of the Designer; they have only presented half-baked conjectures.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

This thread is about Evolution, not Abiogenesis, so why do you bring up Abiogenesis….

Um…. I didn’t; I was responding to someone else.

…in which you have no idea of what you are talking about?

Touchy, eh?
You know neither me nor my ideas. So stop with the Ad homs.

please share with us the “working hypothesis” of abiogenesis. (The formation of amino acids , is not a working hypothesis.)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, thus not a "fact". In science, there has to be at least some indication that the hypothesis could be true even though it's not conclusive.

Yes, I agree. But what I was responding to, was this statement from a poster:
“…why not? Abiogenesis is how life started”
(Bold type and italics are mine.)
So what is a supposed hypothesis with very little supporting evidence, has reached factual status in the
minds of some….minds of many?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I agree. But what I was responding to, was this statement from a poster:
“…why not? Abiogenesis is how life started”
(Bold type and italics are mine.)
So what is a supposed hypothesis with very little supporting evidence, has reached factual status in the
minds of some….minds of many?

It is an assumption for those that do not believe in deities or the supernatural. A reasonable one based on the lack of objective evidence for believed views and the consistency of other phenomena to have naturalistic support. But it is not a fact. Yet. The statement could also be based on personal constraints to the understanding of the status of abiogenesis as an hypothesis. It is a fair leap from a statement like that to establishing it as a belief for even some, let alone many. And no basis to claim it is a position in science.