Proof of evolution -at last-

[setarcos]

My offer still stands. A joint reading of a good college textbook on evolution and a thematic discussion of the points and objections you have on the topics covered.

Hi I would love to discuss this topic with you. Do you wish that I get a particular book on evolution to use or might we simply start a discussion on the main points of evolution? Propositions on how life originated, the fossil record, natural selection, mutations in the genome, Information in DNA, or the like? I'm not sure which subject would be the most productive to start with. Do you have a preference. Since most of those who believe in natural evolution consider it a fact and not a theory perhaps we could start with some contemporary proofs that you know of so that I may pose my questions about it. I assume your pro natural evolution?

 

[viole]

Interesting point about human predecessors. Like parents closer to?? Gorillas? Bonobos? etc.

What do you mean with parents? We are very close to bonobos and gorillas. Isn’t that visually obvious?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

It doesn't matter any more what some say about the disconnect between evolution and abiogenesis. You can't possibly believe evolution without looking at the start of so-called life on earth.

So, true. A friend of mine told me he could not possibly study stars development without knowing where the universe comes from.

The hard truth is that is obvious that you can hve evolution theory without assumptions about the start of life. Creationists like to incorrectly link the two because they are desperate. They try to link things we know a lot about with things we don’t know a lot about, even if they are non overlapping magisteria.

They just want to give their God of the gaps still a little chance, from that little corner He is still hiding today.

and that is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

So, true. A friend of mine told me he could not possibly study stars development without knowing where the universe comes from.

The hard truth is that is obvious that you can hve evolution theory without assumptions about the start of life. Creationists like to incorrectly link the two because they are desperate. They try to link things we know a lot about with things we don’t know a lot about, even if they are non overlapping magisteria.

They just want to give their God of the gaps still a little chance, from that little corner He is still hiding today.

and that is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

ciao

- viole

I don't see "intellectual dishonesty"...just a very different
method of approaching the understanding of reality.
The scientific method is one, & it works very well.
But there are others. (I find them not useful. But then
my needs, orientation, & way of thinking are different.)
In short...I find that my religious friends are just as
honest as my heathen friends.
Ref...
The Religiontific Method

 

[viole]

I don't see "intellectual dishonesty"...just a very different
method of approaching the understanding of reality.
The scientific method is one, & it works very well.
But there are others. (I find them not useful. But then
my needs, orientation, & way of thinking are different.)
In short...I find that my religious friends are just as
honest as my heathen friends.
Ref...
The Religiontific Method

Actually. Me saying creationists are intellectual dishonest by confusing evolution with the origin of life, is a compliment. It assumes that they perfectly see the problem, but just try to circumvent it, by using intellectually dishonest tactics .

The alternative would be, …, well.

ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

The alternative would be, …, well.

Yeah, we best not go there.
Chalk it up to differing ways of seeing patterns in our
natural world. It's not just charitable...it's accurate too.

 

[setarcos]

Me saying creationists are intellectual dishonest by confusing evolution with the origin of life, is a compliment. It assumes that they perfectly see the problem, but just try to circumvent it, by using intellectually dishonest tactics .

Confusing? It doesn't take a genius to deduce that evolution is an attempt at describing the evolution AND origins of life. The theory of evolution necessarily includes theorizing about the origins of life. I don't know how terribly a lot of creationists have presented the theory of intelligent design but as it involves theories on the origin of life, creationists are merely theorizing the origin of life residing in intelligent design not purely natural phenomena. Evolutionists HAVE presented theoretical processes on how life may have developed from "non-living" materials and they HAVE attempted experiments to show the potential process in an attempt to validate a natural evolutionary from non-living matter to living matter and on. To date none have been demonstrably tenable to my knowledge. Creationists might say that the "God hypothesis" predicts that we will never be able to come up with a natural, undirected process that can create life from non-life and so far their predictions have come true.
However comments on the failure of such attempts at validation should not be construed with proofs of intelligent design but data used as evidence that life MAY have been designed. As far as concerns this creationists would say, look, to date it has been demonstrated that how evolutionists thought life may have started is not tenable and evolutionists have yet to come up with a tenable alternative to what's been proposed so at some point we have to lean towards believing that all crows are black. On the other hand evolutionists might say that simply because we haven't discovered a white crow yet does not indicate that their not out there. Probability. At what point does either give up and say...its more probable than not?
I personally would like to know if the theory that exploded with Darwin correctly presents the processes by which we came about and are governed by. So far from what I've studied I think there are serious flaws that have yet to be reconciled. Even if your a naturalist. Some don't believe in evolution as Darwin theorized.
I know, it gets frustrating. So many on here talk at each other instead of to each other. But evolutionists need to realize as well that having natural processes work the way they work does not mean that an intelligence is not behind the processes which made them able to work in the first place. To simply say that something works because it works does not disprove that it works because it was designed to work that way.
It may be better to attempt to focus on whether a person has a valid argument concerning the theory rather than disregarding the argument simply because it was presented as an attempt at proving something that goes beyond the arguments ability to prove or disprove. Remove the labels and focus on the argument itself. No evolutionists, no creationists, no Atheists or theists, just a discussion of the theories presented.
Oh heck, I just realized how impossibly naïve that is. Dang nabbit.

 

[YoursTrue]

So, true. A friend of mine told me he could not possibly study stars development without knowing where the universe comes from.

The hard truth is that is obvious that you can hve evolution theory without assumptions about the start of life. Creationists like to incorrectly link the two because they are desperate. They try to link things we know a lot about with things we don’t know a lot about, even if they are non overlapping magisteria.

They just want to give their God of the gaps still a little chance, from that little corner He is still hiding today.

and that is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

ciao

- viole

It really doesn't matter. The only links claimed by scientists who believe in the theory are those fossils or...lookalikes that have no definite biologic connection, such as proof of evolving genes. And as much as believers in the theory protest to my wording, no proof of genes morphing into a form that overtakes or changes from the form before.

 

[YoursTrue]

Confusing? It doesn't take a genius to deduce that evolution is an attempt at describing the evolution AND origins of life. The theory of evolution necessarily includes theorizing about the origins of life. I don't know how terribly a lot of creationists have presented the theory of intelligent design but as it involves theories on the origin of life, creationists are merely theorizing the origin of life residing in intelligent design not purely natural phenomena. Evolutionists HAVE presented theoretical processes on how life may have developed from "non-living" materials and they HAVE attempted experiments to show the potential process in an attempt to validate a natural evolutionary from non-living matter to living matter and on. To date none have been demonstrably tenable to my knowledge. Creationists might say that the "God hypothesis" predicts that we will never be able to come up with a natural, undirected process that can create life from non-life and so far their predictions have come true.
However comments on the failure of such attempts at validation should not be construed with proofs of intelligent design but data used as evidence that life MAY have been designed. As far as concerns this creationists would say, look, to date it has been demonstrated that how evolutionists thought life may have started is not tenable and evolutionists have yet to come up with a tenable alternative to what's been proposed so at some point we have to lean towards believing that all crows are black. On the other hand evolutionists might say that simply because we haven't discovered a white crow yet does not indicate that their not out there. Probability. At what point does either give up and say...its more probable than not?
I personally would like to know if the theory that exploded with Darwin correctly presents the processes by which we came about and are governed by. So far from what I've studied I think there are serious flaws that have yet to be reconciled. Even if your a naturalist. Some don't believe in evolution as Darwin theorized.
I know, it gets frustrating. So many on here talk at each other instead of to each other. But evolutionists need to realize as well that having natural processes work the way they work does not mean that an intelligence is not behind the processes which made them able to work in the first place. To simply say that something works because it works does not disprove that it works because it was designed to work that way.
It may be better to attempt to focus on whether a person has a valid argument concerning the theory rather than disregarding the argument simply because it was presented as an attempt at proving something that goes beyond the arguments ability to prove or disprove. Remove the labels and focus on the argument itself. No evolutionists, no creationists, no Atheists or theists, just a discussion of the theories presented.
Oh heck, I just realized how impossibly naïve that is. Dang nabbit.

I'm truly impressed and obviously pleased with your thoughtful presentation of the facts. Thank you! And I must say that although your post is long, I actually read it. Congrats that you got the point.

 

[YoursTrue]

We're related but we ain't chimps, and the use of forensic science using both fossil and d.n.a. evidence clearly indicates this.There is vastly more evidence for this than the belief that you and I have that God exists, so why should we ignore what's objectively obvious and only go with that of which there is no objective evidence for whatsoever?

Everything is related if you're going to look at it that way. We all have minerals that are in the ground. So -- everything is related. Although minerals and atoms don't really talk. At least not to my knowledge, although Jesus said if the disciples didn't speak out, the stones would. Remember that? Obviously that was a metaphor, but it sure did mean something. As for evidence, frankly speaking -- when I look at and read the Bible, it really does show me that God exists. That He had a very specific relationship with many, and the disciples were to tell others about Jesus, who believed in God, his Father and superior. Obviously this is not everybody's reaction.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human the theist says life beginnings small cell first he is actually theorising against his own human form existing

Being the descriptive analogy using zero moments to deduce one less than.

Until the human disappears bodily and chemically by thoughts imposed.

Then the machine controller just a mind but has to physically biological force manipulate AI controls. The theist human says my body force a force is the force that controls AI.

I want it to be an AI first fixed held constant point position thesis. Beginning as he falsely claims that beginning body small cell only that then magically manifests into everything else.

Is what is taught as humans self possession self idolising human self by inference my thinking created all forms.

The teaching how evil a theist is as just a human.

In actuality of your human ego group supported.

As when a human pertains life sacrifice can be owned separately aside from and not with biology they intended AI to machine manifest all bodies as one type...energy to then consume the energy.

In non human life presence.

Claiming as the theist a human is the same substance as all things.

As Darwin theories a bird genetically engineered it's mutation but over rode it by the birds life survival.

So what did an ape do when it's body gets sick mutated?

It over rides the mutation allows its ape express but remains a mutated ape.

As the human life mutated had done the same past life causes.

Genesis was written to prove he had in fact mutated human life on God earth inside gods heaven. The only place a human can theory about God.

As a human never began as a human mutant.

The theme once earths mass origin form was different. Science caused its substances to convert. So too did human and animal biology.

As we only live on earth. Science the practice by human choice. Human science proved human science had changed earth as science proved it had changed.

You can only prove science did it as you use science to prove you did it. As a scientist.

 

[YoursTrue]

More intelligent than literal 'Creationists.'

Ah, normally I don't ask you what you mean, but -- yes -- literal "creationists"? And I still have the biology book describing life via biologic evolution and I notice this (now) as a reader -- claims are often made throughout with no substantiation. Maybe there IS substantiation to the claims, but they are not written in the textbook. When I was in school I was not a believer in God and so I took in what scientists said without question. I was a scholarship student not that that's important, but -- I had no reason to question the statements, taking them as true. I no longer do. Anyway not sure what you mean by "literal creationists." I realize attempts by scientists can be made as if to back up the theory. Or perhaps the facts (analysis of elements, etc.) are used to promote the theory. Reading about discovery of fish in Japan I believe, said to be a new species -- they're still fish. So not sure what you mean by "literal creationist." But don't bother explaining, based on my past experience with you. Just my perception, no insult intended.

 

[ppp]

Going back to chimps again...

What exactly is so horrible out about being a member of a species that is one of the great apes? Is it somehow lowering to know that you are part of the animal kingdom? What exactly do you think it entails that is so very bad?

 

[YoursTrue]

...why not? Abiogenesis is how life started, biological evolution is how life has changed and continues to change. I don't really see the necessary overlap here.

There are theories -- evidently not factually duplicated on any other planet that "WE" see, but it's all theoretical unproven, literally, yes literally unduplicated in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

No wonder that evolutionists cant grasp simple facts, such as your quote .(it was not my words.)
I made it clear that in failure to use scientific scrutiny, the Evolutionist have only one argument to defend their religion.
let me assist you for I know that evolutionists believe they are more primitive than their children.
Evolutionists say: "Creationists are not scientists".
They completely ignore the fact that these creationists also have their PHD's etc.
They also ignore the fact that the scientist who dont believe in evolution, does not do so because of lack of evidence for creation, but because of scientific lack of evidence and bias mixed with immagination, and self worshipping narsiscism by evolutionists who dont hesitate to push the simplest fossil down our throats as evidence that higher intelligent life and IQ developed from simple unguided natural processes.
They will not hesitate to tell anyone that an extinct ape tooth, of scull, even if clearly not human, are humanoids and had human feet because we found human footprints 800 miles away from our ape scull.
Pure speculation.
Then we have creationists who point these falsifications out, and guess what they are accused off:...
Evolutionists force a position of authority upon evolutionary scientists, without any validation.
If perhaps you still dont understand what I mean, feel free to ask me for a better explanation on why I believe you did not understand what I wrote.
I will gladly assist.

The more I read promoters of evolution in actuality I have become more interested in science as a means of discovery. Do I believe that vaccines can be effective? Yes. The more I also realize the gaps there are in substantiating the reality of evolution. This does not mean that I think God created blind fish. On the other hand, blind fish are still fish.

 

[ppp]

There are theories -- evidently not factually duplicated on any other planet that "WE" see, but it's all theoretical unproven, literally, yes literally unduplicated in science.

Do you know what "it all" entails? Do you know what has been demonstrated to be possible and what has not? I mean specially,, not just that generalized harrumphing we get from creationists who have no idea what a protein is.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The more I read promoters of evolution in actuality I have become more interested in science as a means of discovery. Do I believe that vaccines can be effective? Yes. The more I also realize the gaps there are in substantiating the reality of evolution. This does not mean that I think God created blind fish. On the other hand, blind fish are still fish.

I wonder what gaps you are talking about. Did you think blind fish would be Norwegian Blue parrots?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting point about human predecessors. Like parents closer to?? Gorillas? Bonobos? etc.

What?

 

[blü 2]

I personally would like to know if the theory that exploded with Darwin correctly presents the processes by which we came about and are governed by.

Darwin developed his theory of evolution something over 170 years ago, and published it something over 160 years ago. If you want to argue, might I suggest you argue with the theory of evolution as it stands in 2022, not as it stood in 1859?

But evolutionists need to realize as well that having natural processes work the way they work does not mean that an intelligence is not behind the processes which made them able to work in the first place.

I'm not aware of any examinable evidence to support that idea.

What in scientific terms is your claim?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Confusing? It doesn't take a genius to deduce that evolution is an attempt at describing the evolution AND origins of life. The theory of evolution necessarily includes theorizing about the origins of life. I don't know how terribly a lot of creationists have presented the theory of intelligent design but as it involves theories on the origin of life, creationists are merely theorizing the origin of life residing in intelligent design not purely natural phenomena. Evolutionists HAVE presented theoretical processes on how life may have developed from "non-living" materials and they HAVE attempted experiments to show the potential process in an attempt to validate a natural evolutionary from non-living matter to living matter and on. To date none have been demonstrably tenable to my knowledge. Creationists might say that the "God hypothesis" predicts that we will never be able to come up with a natural, undirected process that can create life from non-life and so far their predictions have come true.
However comments on the failure of such attempts at validation should not be construed with proofs of intelligent design but data used as evidence that life MAY have been designed. As far as concerns this creationists would say, look, to date it has been demonstrated that how evolutionists thought life may have started is not tenable and evolutionists have yet to come up with a tenable alternative to what's been proposed so at some point we have to lean towards believing that all crows are black. On the other hand evolutionists might say that simply because we haven't discovered a white crow yet does not indicate that their not out there. Probability. At what point does either give up and say...its more probable than not?
I personally would like to know if the theory that exploded with Darwin correctly presents the processes by which we came about and are governed by. So far from what I've studied I think there are serious flaws that have yet to be reconciled. Even if your a naturalist. Some don't believe in evolution as Darwin theorized.
I know, it gets frustrating. So many on here talk at each other instead of to each other. But evolutionists need to realize as well that having natural processes work the way they work does not mean that an intelligence is not behind the processes which made them able to work in the first place. To simply say that something works because it works does not disprove that it works because it was designed to work that way.
It may be better to attempt to focus on whether a person has a valid argument concerning the theory rather than disregarding the argument simply because it was presented as an attempt at proving something that goes beyond the arguments ability to prove or disprove. Remove the labels and focus on the argument itself. No evolutionists, no creationists, no Atheists or theists, just a discussion of the theories presented.
Oh heck, I just realized how impossibly naïve that is. Dang nabbit.

It isn't a study or theory of the origins of life. That is abiogenesis.

The evolution of life is not dependent on a specific origin of life. If it is shown to be by intelligent design/divine creation or natural abiogenesis, evolution would still apply.