Proof of evolution -at last-

[YoursTrue]

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.



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.

Good points about language and development. (That too is hypothesized about development by scientists, but of course, they really and I mean really don't know.)
The Bible does say that God said, "Let us make man in our image." Genesis 2:7 says, "And Jehovah God went on to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living person." While I did not see it, there are no motion pictures of it, the Bible's description is certainly not a detailed account, yet at this point, after studying the Bible and peering as closely as possible at scientific explanations of how man came about, I accept the biblical account of creation rather than the idea that molecules more or less put themselves together according to the theory of natural selection, or survival of the fittest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I predicted this.

It is too bad that she has me on ignore. She had to admit that there was evidence for evolution in the past. I don't think she like that. Can someone tell her for me:

"Of course they are still viruses, just as you are just an ape. You appear to be willing to accept a larger change in viruses and not call it evolution but when a smaller one occurred in our past you have to try to deny that it happened."

Thanks in advance.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

I've addressed that. Skin color, eye color, hair texture, etc. are genetics. When I bring up the idea that gorillas stay gorillas, humans stay humans, I am told that there is not enough time to tell. Beyond that, there is simply no evidence demonstrating biologically that life developed by the claimed history of the method of the process of evolution. One might say, "Yes, there is!" but there really is not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've addressed that. Skin color, eye color, hair texture, etc. are genetics. When I bring up the idea that gorillas stay gorillas, humans stay humans, I am told that there is not enough time to tell. Beyond that, there is simply no evidence demonstrating biologically that life developed by the claimed history of the method of the process of evolution. One might say, "Yes, there is!" but there really is not.

Oh my! Please study some cladistics. Evolution says exactly that. What you do not like is the fact that you are still an ape. A line of descent cannot evolve out of its past. Its past will always be a part of it.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

I'm not sure what you mean by disadvantages. For me it is clear that we, as humans, are the offspring of Adam and Eve, who were created by God as perfect physically and mentally, but then were changed because of their failure to listen to God. All creation, as has been described in the Bible, has been subject to problems since then. There are considerations from the Bible concerning this:
Romans chapter 8 comments on this in part:
"For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now."

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure what you mean by disadvantages. For me it is clear that we, as humans, are the offspring of Adam and Eve, who were created by God as perfect physically and mentally, but then were changed because of their failure to listen to God. All creation, as has been described in the Bible, has been subject to problems since then. There are considerations from the Bible concerning this:
Romans chapter 8 comments on this in part:
"For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but through the one who subjected it, on the basis of hope 21 that the creation itself will also be set free from enslavement to corruption and have the glorious freedom of the children of God. 22 For we know that all creation keeps on groaning together and being in pain together until now."

Why have a belief that has no evidence for it and endless evidence against it? You seem to be another creationists that calls your own God a liar.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

There are certain things I read in the Bible that I do not understand or know as fact. Because I was not there and did not speak to those who were. As I said many times, I was a believer in the ToE throughout my school years and beyond, getting good (scholarship worthy) grades. I went to church and other religious services, was a participant in many cases, but left with shrugged shoulders during that time. Later is when I studied the Bible in earnest. I found overwhelming evidence that there IS a God, that there is only one true God, as Jesus declared, that God is the Creator. I also read books in detail about evolution, see it online, and no longer believe or follow their reasoning in general. That is not to say I believe each 'day' of creation was 24 hours. I leave you to parse it out now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are certain things I read in the Bible that I do not understand or know as fact. Because I was not there and did not speak to those who were. As I said many times, I was a believer in the ToE throughout my school years and beyond, getting good (scholarship worthy) grades. I went to church and other religious services, was a participant in many cases, but left with shrugged shoulders during that time. Later is when I studied the Bible in earnest. I found overwhelming evidence that there IS a God, that there is only one true God, as Jesus declared, that God is the Creator. I also read books in detail about evolution, see it online, and no longer believe or follow their reasoning in general. That is not to say I believe each 'day' of creation was 24 hours. I leave you to parse it out now.

Believing without understanding is not of much value. If you had understood then you could have known that the theory of evolution is correct.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

Let me try and you can correct me, ok? I won't start at the beginning, not abiogenesis but rather after that. Slightly. Meaning after the first molecule moved into another molecule or two, changing into more molecules perhaps changing, perhaps not, just multiplying. What do you think so far?

 

[YoursTrue]

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.
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.

I have been looking at references to carbon-14 dating methods and there are some very interesting observations regarding the radioactivity and its association with the earth and carbon-14. I won't go into detail until I learn more about it, but it does seem to be quite related to time testing and its relation to drastic changes to the atmosphere. The fact that dna can be quite similar among plants and animals does not prove* to me anymore that there was not a designer enabling these things genetically and using them to create lifeforms. *when I say prove I mean that before I studied the Bible as much as possible I believed what scientists said about the process of evolution was true. I no longer do. Rather I believe that God made the elements of the earth, including lifeforms.

 

[Valjean]

Let me try and you can correct me, ok? I won't start at the beginning, not abiogenesis but rather after that. Slightly. Meaning after the first molecule moved into another molecule or two, changing into more molecules perhaps changing, perhaps not, just multiplying. What do you think so far?

You seem to be talking about biochemistry. I'm talking about mechanisms, like natural selection, mutation, gene flow, sexual selection, genetic drift, &c.
Are you conversant with these?

 

[YoursTrue]

You seem to be talking about biochemistry. I'm talking about mechanisms, like natural selection, mutation, gene flow, sexual selection, genetic drift, &c.
Are you conversant with these?

I have read about the mechanics. I am probably not as conversant as you are, but from what I read it does not prove evolution. Oh, I mean evidence, demonstrate, or show evolution as it is purported to be. Are you saying, however, that biochemistry or rather chemical reactions, are not inherently involved with the process of what you suppose is evolution?

 

[shunyadragon]

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

First my religion does not believe in reincarnation. Your intentional ignorance about everything is getting compounded. You have never expressed an understanding of the present knowledge of science as it applies to the 'science of evolution. So far you have only asserted an ancient religious perspective without science.

 

[shunyadragon]

That molecules combine or shift does not mean evolution.

True, but your intentional ignorance of science compounds and reveals your agenda.

 

[shunyadragon]

I have read about the mechanics. I am probably not as conversant as you are, but from what I read it does not prove evolution. Oh, I mean evidence, demonstrate, or show evolution as it is purported to be. Are you saying, however, that biochemistry or rather chemical reactions, are not inherently involved with the process of what you suppose is evolution?

Again, again and again . . . science does not prove anything, You do not have enough knowledge in science to express a coherent position concerning the ;science of evolution.'

 

[shunyadragon]

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

This misrepresents how scientists view theories and hypothesis in the Methods of science, The 'science of evolution is not a theory. Yes all theories and hypothesis that are falsified and accepted are subject to change with new information and discoverie, but not 'tentative' by any criteria. Yes, when a new theory or hypothesis is proposed for research it can be tentative. The science of evolution relies on many falsified theories and has stood the test and hypothesis in the research concerning evolution. The science of evolution has stood the test of time for over 150+ years pf scientific research and discoveries.

 

[metis]

Later is when I studied the Bible in earnest. I found overwhelming evidence that there IS a God, that there is only one true God, as Jesus declared, that God is the Creator.

And how many times do you have to be told that the ToE does not in any way negate there being a Divine creation?

I also read books in detail about evolution, see it online, and no longer believe or follow their reasoning in general.

But what were the sources? Heck, using the internet one can find "proof" that the Earth is flat and sea monsters still exist and roam the oceans.

IOW, let me recommend that when doing the scriptures use the scriptures, but when doing the science use actual scientific sources and not questionable "religious" sources disguising themselves as science. I've read many of the latter over the years, and I can't understand how some authors of such trash can literally lie about their supposed evidence and consider themselves to be believers in the Truth.

In closing, the ToE does not negate God in any way but helps show us how all of creation evolved over time.

 

[cladking]

If you had understood then you could have known that the theory of evolution is correct.

So, gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is proven.

Again, again and again . . . science does not prove anything,

or maybe not.

Yes all theories and hypothesis that are falsified and accepted are subject to change with new information and discoverie, but not 'tentative' by any criteria.

It's proven!

It always seems like Evolution is established fact until anyone dares to question what an established fact is. I'll give you a clue; established fact is not really "tentative". I'll give you another clue, even observation can be performed incorrectly. Despite the title of this thread no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. All observed change is sudden. Anything imagined from the fossil record is hypothesis or not science at all.

 

[gnostic]

There are certain things I read in the Bible that I do not understand or know as fact. Because I was not there and did not speak to those who were. As I said many times, I was a believer in the ToE throughout my school years and beyond, getting good (scholarship worthy) grades. I went to church and other religious services, was a participant in many cases, but left with shrugged shoulders during that time. Later is when I studied the Bible in earnest. I found overwhelming evidence that there IS a God, that there is only one true God, as Jesus declared, that God is the Creator. I also read books in detail about evolution, see it online, and no longer believe or follow their reasoning in general. That is not to say I believe each 'day' of creation was 24 hours. I leave you to parse it out now.

Sorry, but that’s laughable.

You have demonstrated time and time again, that you don’t understand Evolutionary Biology at all, so that you think “good” at it, you haven’t shown it, here.

Second, high school biology may teach you some basics, but that would be all they would teach you. At high school, you would only barely scratch the surface of learning and understanding Evolution and biology in general.

And if you ever studied at the first year at university-level, you would re-learn the basics, followed by something a little more advanced. Then, depending on your focus of your course of your chosen field, you would be selected to study more advanced area that differed somewhat if you have chosen a different field or course.

That would be true, not only biology-related fields, but also in physics-related fields, chemistry-related field, etc.

I was never a biology student, but even I can see that you are not more advanced than me with in biology. You are certainly not “good” at it, especially when I can see many of the errors you have made, here and in past threads.

So outside of high school, do you have university-level biology-related qualification? Do you have experiences in or worked in biology-related field?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest is proven.

Wow! In one sentence you lose the debate. You demonstrated that you do not understand either the sciences or evolution. Let me correct you:

Gradual change in species has been observed.

or maybe not.



It's proven!

It always seems like Evolution is established fact until anyone dares to question what an established fact is. I'll give you a clue; established fact is not really "tentative". I'll give you another clue, even observation can be performed incorrectly. Despite the title of this thread no experiment has ever shown a gradual change in species caused by survival of the fittest. All observed change is sudden. Anything imagined from the fossil record is hypothesis or not science at all.

Don't blame others when you can't use proper terminology. Yes, evolution is an established fact. You don't seem to understand that either. And experiments have shown gradual change of a species. Lastly, you proved that you do not understand even the basics of science so you are in no position at all to declare what is or is not science.

I am amazed at your ability to be fractally wrong so often.