Proof of evolution -at last-

[YoursTrue]

Your religious agenda based on ancient texts, and your intentional ignorance of science precludes any pretext of honesty on your part.

IT was originally proposed as a theory by Charles Darwin, but in reality it is not one theory, but the 'science of evolution' today supported by an overwhelming amount of research and discoveries over the past 150+ years in the work of 19s of thousands of scientists worldwide. 95%+ of all scientists worldwide unconditionally accept the sciene of evolution with education you intentionally refuse to get.

The bottomline is you are not 'honest' nor 'sincere' about science,

I am very sincere about science. You are not telling the truth about me.
So It isn't "one theory" you claim? Maybe a multitude of theories purporting the process of...evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Your not being honest. You are rejecting the 'honest objective based science for an ancient religious agenda.

You're the one not telling the truth about me. Yet your religious belief is what? Reincarnation?

 

[Valjean]

To be honest, evolution seems very much like magic.

That must be because you don't understand it. Each step is clear, observable and commonsense.
Magic is effect without mechanism. The ToE is entirely a description of mechanism.
So where are you seeing magic?

I find it incredible to believe that there is an unknown common denominator between gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.

You have to observe every minute step in a process to accept that a process occurred?
I'd love to see you on a jury.

I realize that. Still as you know, deciding one makes more sense than the other can be judiciously done. This is not to say that what someone believes must be accepted by another.

Not a question of must, it's a question of reasonable.

 

[wellwisher]

Do animals, such as the pet dog, believe in evolution or creation? The answer to this question is they do not ponder either, since their brain and their consciousness is not set up to think and worry about such things They cannot analyze the data or draw abstract conclusions, either way.

What that means is the ideas of evolution and creation did not appear until human consciousness had reached a state of conscious development where such questions become important and the right questions are asked. This awareness is when the universe was first observed and the first explanations are attempted. This data appears to be coordinated with the formation of civilization, and not with single cell replicators who lacked consciousness.

When we look out at the universe, the current age we agree upon in science, did not appear until a little over a hundred years ago. This modern dating was not known until after Einstein and Relativity. When Genesis claims 6000 years, this appears ot be the date modern consciousness, capable to making the first guesses at these questions, appears.

If you look at the Western calendar we are in the year 2022. This does not mean the earth started 2022 years ago. It signified the start of a new era or a new chapter in human conscious history. It is not about DNA or fossils, but is connected the operating system of the human brain changing from the ancient ways since Rome had reached the pinnacle of the old way.

The 6000 year ago calender of Genesis is similar; start of an era of consciousness where the ego appears and self thought first appears. Only with self thought and consciousness can any question and estimate appear.

The current estimate of the age of the universe Is about 13 billion years old. But this is based on earth years which does not exist until 5-6 billion years ago. The first 7-8 billion years Is not a valid reference since it did not yet exist. It was imaginary back then.

Einstein also showed us that frame of reference is relative. Paradoxically, science claims there is no absolute reference yet treats the earth reference as the absolute frame, with no other reference acceptable. Do as I say, not as I do.

Frame of reference requires consciousness. If we are unconscious, we would have no awareness of which relative frame we are in. When did humans become conscious enough to know which relative frame they were in?

Genesis claims this to be about 6000 years ago. when the first frames were understood, as a reference point for telling time. Their questions may not have been earth frame, but would have needed to be closer to the speed of light, to get the correct time sequence for Genesis.

As a homework question for the scientists, what would your relative reference need to be, to see our universe being only 1 billion year old? Was there any proof of consciousness there to see it?

 

[Valjean]

Yes, but...with all the fossil finds etc., Still no viable evidence of the"common ancestor."

Did you expect the original life form, if there was one, to have fossilized, and the fossil found and identified by a paleontologist billions of years later?
You set a high bar for credulity. It's a wonder you believe anything at all.

To be honest with you, I can't figure why it can't be found. There must have been plenty of them, whoever or whatever they were. And then to say that this thing (the purportedly common ancestor) branched off somehow to these distinct forms (chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans) is simply too incredible for me to believe anymore. So what do I think happened? Just as the Bible says. It doesn't give DNA detail but it makes sense moreso, frankly, than the theory (and I say theory purposely) of evolution.

Are we talking about a common ancestor of all apes? You do realize that unless you have every offspring of every primate, there will always be gaps?
Every intermediate fossil find creates two more gaps in the process.

Again, you set a high bar. I find your incredulity self-serving and unreasonable. You seem desperate to validate your belief in magic poofing.

 

[Valjean]

I realize that can be asserted. But really the theory of evolution invokes the theory without saying so outright, that God has little to do with life coming about in the format we see.

But the theory has yet to find a need for a magician. Thus far, every step seems natural and explainable by ordinary chemistry or genetics.

Positing an extraneous factor in a process violates the Occam's razor concept. Positing a magical one borders on ridiculous.

I'm guaranteeing you that if we ever have the means to find out, you will not find that a monkey or some in-between is in your line of ancestry. If I'm wrong, ok, I'll retract the guarantee and perhaps apologize.

Inasmuch as each find creates two more gaps, I'm not holding my breath. Your confirmation bias is strong, and you're very adept at nitpicking minute gaps in a process to maintain your incredulity.

 

[Valjean]

For all real scientists the acceptance of theory is tentative and dependent on experiment.

Not seeing your point.
Are you implying that the steps of evolution are not observable or demonstrable?

 

[cladking]

Do animals, such as the pet dog, believe in evolution or creation? The answer to this question is they do not ponder either, since their brain and their consciousness is not set up to think and worry about such things They cannot analyze the data or draw abstract conclusions, either way.

How then do you propose ancient man invented agriculture and cities? In fact how did termites do the same?

I think we'll eventually learn that many species have agriculture. Certainly beavers create huge fish habitats.

We are looking at everything through the wrong end of a telescope.

 

[cladking]

Not seeing your point.
Are you implying that the steps of evolution are not observable or demonstrable?

Yes!!!

But that's hardly the point.

All real scientists do not marry theory. They may love it or sleep with it but they do not marry it.

 

[cladking]

But the theory has yet to find a need for a magician.

When you understand every single thing you see there is no magic and no need for magic.

Even the most primitive shaman understands every thing he sees but you believe he is wrong.

In a hundred years (much sooner for Egyptology) a lot of modern theory and beliefs will be seen to be wrong or woefully incomplete.

 

[metis]

To be honest, evolution seems very much like magic.

Not if one understands the basics, such as one being that genes sometimes are altered by mutations, such as what we've seen numerous times already with the covid variants.

 

[Valjean]

I said: "Are you implying that the steps of evolution are not observable or demonstrable?"

Yes!!!

But this is just factually incorrect!

When you understand every single thing you see there is no magic and no need for magic.

OK...

Even the most primitive shaman understands every thing he sees but you believe he is wrong.

I question whether he understands everything he sees. I believe that even if he does; as long as his understanding is entirely subjective and he cannot cite empirical, supporting evidence, it would be unreasonable to believe him.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not if one understands the basics, such as one being that genes sometimes are altered by mutations, such as what we've seen numerous times already with the covid variants.

The basics are an analysis of elements and watching some molecules move, combine, but -- this does not prove evolution. I realize the word prove is no good here, but is it evidence of the truth of the theory of evolution? No.

 

[YoursTrue]

I said: "Are you implying that the steps of evolution are not observable or demonstrable?"
But this is just factually incorrect!
OK...
I question whether he understands everything he sees. I believe that even if he does; as long as his understanding is entirely subjective and he cannot cite empirical, supporting evidence, it would be unreasonable to believe him.

That molecules combine or shift does not mean evolution.

 

[YoursTrue]

Not if one understands the basics, such as one being that genes sometimes are altered by mutations, such as what we've seen numerous times already with the covid variants.

I have considered that viruses attach themselves to hosts. However from my understanding, viruses stay viruses, don't they? Just as eyes are eyes and two human beings can produce a child with variant eye color, this does not mean evolution. If you think it does, well at this point -- all I can say is ...well.if that's what you think evolution is, I do not.

 

[YoursTrue]

How then do you propose ancient man invented agriculture and cities? In fact how did termites do the same?

I think we'll eventually learn that many species have agriculture. Certainly beavers create huge fish habitats.

We are looking at everything through the wrong end of a telescope.

I would like to mention something here. Animals can be instinctively wise. This is a biblical concept.
For instance, the ant receives favorable comment in the scriptures. “Go to the ant, you lazy one; see its ways and become wise." (Prov. 6:6) This obviously means we can learn from ants. And the Bible also indicates that they are among creatures which are “instinctively wise.” (Prov. 30:24, 25)
The idea that somehow somewhere the human brain evolved to something more intelligent with thinking, morals, and concept no longer makes sense to me. In fact, to apply the concept of survival of the fittest or natural selection here doesn't make sense. All that aside from the fact (yes, fact) that gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and the like are said to have developed from a common ancestor relating to the evolution of humans. I no longer believe it, scientists think it is so but there is no evidence of any of that.

 

[metis]

The basics are an analysis of elements and watching some molecules move, combine, but -- this does not prove evolution. I realize the word prove is no good here, but is it evidence of the truth of the theory of evolution? No.

Absolutely, 100% false. I know, as I went through this process of coming out of a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught against the ToE, then realizing I was being told wrong, studying, and then eventually getting a graduate degree in anthropology and then teaching it for 30 years, which included human evolution ("physical anthropology"). The evidence for the ToE is absolutely overwhelming.

Thus, instead of using religion as being enlightening, to reject such basic science is to relegate Christianity to nothing more than Dark Age mythology.

 

[cladking]

But this is just factually incorrect!

"Are you implying that the steps of evolution are not observable or demonstrable?"

Then you can show how whales evolved from individual to individual?

OK...

You and most other believers.

I question whether he understands everything he sees.

Ask him.

I assure you he does just like everyone else.

 

[cladking]

The idea that somehow somewhere the human brain evolved to something more intelligent with thinking, morals, and concept no longer makes sense to me. In fact, to apply the concept of survival of the fittest or natural selection here doesn't make sense.

I couldn't agree more.

If we have made any progress it is thanks to language which allows us to pass down knowledge from generation to generation.

I no longer believe it, scientists think it is so but there is no evidence of any of that.

It is very surprising to me that human origins are so poorly understood. One would expect this to be solved after so many years and so much evidence.

It seems a certainty that homo sapiens arose simultaneously with and because of the advent of complex language. But what in the world preceded it; a proto-human with simple language or "creation"? The Bible suggests Adam was first but this doesn't answer the question of whether he was a mutant or created directly.

The problem isn't so much one of interpretation as it is what one wants to believe. I'm just looking for the truth myself.

 

[Valjean]

That molecules combine or shift does not mean evolution.

How about variations among offspring, conferring advantages or disadvantages in life?
You don't seem to understand what "mechanisms of evolution" are.