Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

[YoursTrue]

It's explained in the posts you are replying to. To be more specific, the parts you never quote or respond to.



I'm aware that you don't know what punctuated equilibrium is about or how it works, which is why I had to explain it to you (and which you haven't responded to).

I'm aware that you make statements like "but they are still bacteria!" and believe that that is somehow a problem for evolution. This one is extra bad, since it implies that it would have to become "non-bacteria" for you to think it supports evolution. While in reality, evolution theory would be falsified. This is how backwards your "understanding" of it is.



The evidence says otherwise. And you know me... I like evidence.



Says the guy who always only quotes the least relevant sentence of posts filled with relevant points.
This is an extreme case of projection.



Yes.



Yes. And another fact is that we can use those similarities to construct family tries and figure out levels of relatedness between samples.

This is how we can know that your brother is your actual brother and not your cousin.
That species share ancestry is as much a fact as when DNA comparisons are used to determine if your cousin is your actual cousin.



No, it's how DNA works. It mutates in every individual and they pass it on to offspring in that mutated form, where it mutates further. This creates a traceable hierarchical construct. A family tree.

To find out what the tree is, all you need to do is compare the DNA and map out the matches and misses.
When you plot out that data on a graph, you get your family tree.

There is no bias in this process. If species don't share ancestry, it will end up being a chaotic mess with lines all over the place and things that don't make any sense in evolutionary context.
If species DO share ancestry, this will come out in a rather sensible and cleanly grouped hierarchical tree. A family tree.

Here's one that's been generated by a software that analyses fully sequenced genomes.
The software counts the hits and maps them out. That's all it does.

View attachment 54236


All this together, makes common ancestry of species nothing short of fact.
As factual as when a DNA test says that your brother is your actual brother and not your cousin.


So now that you know this, you can go on ignoring it just like you did with the other explanations I gave you. Perhaps just quote this sentence, as it's the least relevant.


From prokaryotes to eukaryotes (berkeley.edu)



Abiogenesis <> Evolution.

I'm 110% sure people have already told you this. You ignored them too?



Maybe you should start with the basics first, but...
Evolution of sexual reproduction - Wikipedia



In the same way that I "believe" that a fire raged here:

View attachment 54237




Sure, but the important part of a belief, is what it is based on - how it is justified.
This is not the same kind of "belief" as the creationist belief that some god magicked it all into existence.

My beliefs are justified by evidence.
Your beliefs are motivated by "faith" instead.

Is there anything that you couldn't believe on "faith"?
Like the burned down house above. You could believe on "faith" that god created it that way, could you not?



The evidence says otherwise.



Yes. Right now, I'm learning about intellectual dishonesty motivated by dogmatic creationist beliefs.

As a side point, regardless of anyone looking or not looking at the evidence, there are a number of ways to look at something; and as people say, the proof is in the pudding. Some like chocolate pudding, others do not. Some are allergic to milk, others are not. To explain -- fossils are one thing. They're there, they cannot be denied. (Like chocolate pudding in front of a person, to say it's not there would not be honest.) But fossils are not proof of evolution. Unlike pudding being proof that there is pudding, there IS no proof of evolution, unless one wants to say the fossils prove it. You can say there IS proof (but of course, in scientific terms, you might say evidence, not proof), but there actually IS no proof. The evidence shows that someone made the pudding. BTW. Take if from there...

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, what are some of the main differences? How about the organelles in eucaryotic cells? Like the mitochondria and choloroplasts?

The fun thing about them and other organelles? Many of them have their own DNA that is distinct from the nuclear DNA of the larger cell.

And that gives a clue (a bit of evidence). Eucaryotic cells are symbiotic collections. They formed when simpler cells formed a symbiotic relationship with engulfed cells as opposed to simply devouring them.

This has been studied quite extensively, I might add.


That is abiogenesis, not evolution. And that is being worked on and the answers are gradually being figured out.



And the way to investigate this is to look at the variety of sex-like behaviors in organisms that can 'go both ways'. And there are many that do. One point is that sex allows for better mixing of the different genes which allows for better adaptation to changing environments. Those organisms that can go both ways tend to go to sexuality in environments that are becoming harsher (*say, drier conditions for an aquatic organism).

Furthermore, most of the machinery of sex isn't present at first. The cross over of DNA and subsequent distribution to daughter cells which later merge to form new individuals (the cellular essence of sex) doesn't require the male/female distinction. And many species at this level simply don't have a hard split between sexes.

Even at much more advanced levels, whether an individual is male or female may not depend on genetics, but rather environment and social clues. Many species of fish and amphibians do not have constant male-female divisions. So that type of thing is much later than the development of sex itself.

So, yes, we know a fair amount about how sex arose *by studying the variations that still exist*. The answers are surprising and contrary to the simplistic views many want to hold, but they are out there.

But you “believe” these events happened.
To not call them a belief set, borders on farcical.

I’m always learning something; are you?

P.S. about learning, do you really think that if abiogenesis can be "figured out," it can be duplicated and the process of evolution be thereby in subsequent process after it's figured out? If I were someone like you, no insult, I'd probably say yes. (Not that is, of course, faith on your part.)
I'm simply posing the question to YOU who thinks POSSIBLY you might eventually create life that moves an organism. By you, I mean those who believe (think) like you do. You want to stick with evolution even though you know you can't prove it except to use the fossils as proof, or evidence that the theory is true. And, of course, what others say. Meaning other esteemed and educated persons in the realm of evolution. So you have faith in the supposed processes that you believe cause something to evolve bigtime. Bigtime meaning from fish to humans. I'm skipping over a few inbetweens.
I'm not talking about bacteria evolving, because as we know, bacteria stay bacteria, and -- somehow -- ants and gorillas have not been evolved to feel the need to put clothing on. yet. And oh, ants so far have not been seen to evolve to anything but ants, gorillas likewise. They stay gorillas. All without clothing.
You have faith in evolution. Or the theory. Or however you describe it. I have faith that it is by God's power (another word for that could be 'hand') to enable life. I'm stopping there because -- right now humans die and unless you want to tell me something else, likely many people will not be remembered in a few hundred years. Many of us do not know our great great grandparents. They are not in our memory. Oh, and neither are specific gorillas in most people's memories. They don't write books about their history. I don't know the ants by name, but I do know that I can remember today that I saw some yesterday. I doubt they have names. I doubt they have funerals. Ya think maybe they do have funerals, or -- maybe they just didn't evolve to that level.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But fossils are not proof of evolution

Nobody says they are.
What the fossils do, is support the evolutionary narative.
They fit the hierarchical trees we obtain objectively through DNA analysis. They match the expected distribution of species. They match the predictions made by evolution theory and evolutionary history.

This is how and why they find fossils like Tiktaalik by prediction of where to dig and how it will look like.

. Unlike pudding being proof that there is pudding, there IS no proof of evolution, unless one wants to say the fossils prove it.

There isn't any proof of any scientific theory. As theories aren't ever "proven" in that sense. Proof is for mathematics. Not for the natural sciences.

Theories explain facts. Facts support theories. Theories don't become facts.
Common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory explains that fact.

You can say there IS proof (but of course, in scientific terms, you might say evidence, not proof), but there actually IS no proof. The evidence shows that someone made the pudding. BTW. Take if from there...

Your silly worthless meaningless analogy is noted.

Meanwhile, common ancestry of species remains a genetic fact.
Meanwhile, the fossil record and distribution of species fits the evolutionary narrative that explains that fact.

In other words, ALL the evidence supports evolution and nothing contradicts it.

Contrary to what you guys seem to think, you people not believing it, is not an argument against it.

Ignoring the facts doesn't make them go away.
And invoking god magic doesn't explain anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

P.S. about learning, do you really think that if abiogenesis can be "figured out," it can be duplicated and the process of evolution be thereby in subsequent process after it's figured out? If I were someone like you, no insult, I'd probably say yes. (Not that is, of course, faith on your part.)
I'm simply posing the question to YOU who thinks POSSIBLY you might eventually create life that moves an organism. By you, I mean those who believe (think) like you do. You want to stick with evolution even though you know you can't prove it except to use the fossils as proof, or evidence that the theory is true. And, of course, what others say. Meaning other esteemed and educated persons in the realm of evolution. So you have faith in the supposed processes that you believe cause something to evolve bigtime.

There's no faith involved as it all is evidence based.
Evolution factually occurs, just like gravity.
The theory of evolution merely addresses the processes by which it occurs.

Bigtime meaning from fish to humans. I'm skipping over a few inbetweens.

A "few" inbetweens
Causally skipping over hundreds of millions of years worth of biological evolution. A "few". lol.

I'm not talking about bacteria evolving, because as we know, bacteria stay bacteria

And again you repeat that same mistake.

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums

and -- somehow -- ants and gorillas have not been evolved to feel the need to put clothing on.

And oh, ants so far have not been seen to evolve to anything but ants, gorillas likewise. They stay gorillas

Doubling down on your failure.

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums

You have faith in evolution. Or the theory. Or however you describe it.

One does not require faith when one has evidence.

I have faith that it is by God's power (another word for that could be 'hand') to enable life. I'm stopping there because -- right now humans die and unless you want to tell me something else, likely many people will not be remembered in a few hundred years. Many of us do not know our great great grandparents. They are not in our memory. Oh, and neither are specific gorillas in most people's memories. They don't write books about their history. I don't know the ants by name, but I do know that I can remember today that I saw some yesterday. I doubt they have names. I doubt they have funerals. Ya think maybe they do have funerals, or -- maybe they just didn't evolve to that level.

How you think this nonsense is relevant in any way, is simply bizar.

 

[YoursTrue]

There's no faith involved as it all is evidence based.
Evolution factually occurs, just like gravity.
The theory of evolution merely addresses the processes by which it occurs.




A "few" inbetweens
Causally skipping over hundreds of millions of years worth of biological evolution. A "few". lol.




And again you repeat that same mistake.

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums




View attachment 54242




Doubling down on your failure.

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums



One does not require faith when one has evidence.



How you think this nonsense is relevant in any way, is simply bizar.

Well, since I'm not really discussing the Bible here, because the topic is more or less why evolution is true, (or not true) while it (evolution, the theory of) may seem logical, let's go back to the beginning and please do say what is the first bit of evidence for (or declaring by evidence) the process. (Shouldn't take long...)

 

[YoursTrue]

There's no faith involved as it all is evidence based.
Evolution factually occurs, just like gravity.
The theory of evolution merely addresses the processes by which it occurs.




A "few" inbetweens
Causally skipping over hundreds of millions of years worth of biological evolution. A "few". lol.




And again you repeat that same mistake.

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums




View attachment 54242




Doubling down on your failure.

How do you define evolution? | Page 30 | Religious Forums



One does not require faith when one has evidence.



How you think this nonsense is relevant in any way, is simply bizar.

ok, you can say what you want. I'll leave it this way -- despite the fossils and similarities of gorillas, chimpanzees, using these things as evidence, including similar dna as if that "proves" it, or it's evidence as you would say (not proof of course...) it still is not evidence, and if evidence is not a sure thing of the theory, well, all I can say is once again -- hope all goes well for you. BTW, I'm speaking on the basis of -- no realllll proof. You might want to say the evidence supports the theory -- dna similarity, looks, fish wih feet or legs, again -- and you might say this is bizarre -- still no need that gorillas have evolved to want to wear underwear. Ever wonder why? After you do that, maybe you can believe the idea that homosexuality has evolved in the human genes as scientists seem to be proposing now. So maybe there will be mandates or agreements that if humans want the human race to continue, they'll have to use the genes available to do it.

 

[YoursTrue]

It's explained in the posts you are replying to. To be more specific, the parts you never quote or respond to.
.....


In the same way that I "believe" that a fire raged here:

View attachment 54237




Sure, but the important part of a belief, is what it is based on - how it is justified.
This is not the same kind of "belief" as the creationist belief that some god magicked it all into existence.

My beliefs are justified by evidence.
Your beliefs are motivated by "faith" instead.

Is there anything that you couldn't believe on "faith"?
Like the burned down house above. You could believe on "faith" that god created it that way, could you not?

No. Here's why -- someone built that house. Somehow there was a fire that damaged it. Looking at that picture does not tell you where the fire came from. Reasoning of a normal mind would tell a person (yes, tell without words) that the house was built by human hands. Therefore -- someone built that house. Someone of the human species cut the lumber and put it together. Somehow there was a fire. That's what the evidence shows.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

There is nothing in Science that preclude scientists in not believing in a Creator. Rather it is appreciable and very appropriate, as I understand, that they believe in the Creator.
The Creator- the Wise has used systems to create hence we find processes in everything that exists.
Does Science support non-believing, please?
I don't agree with it, please. Right?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

Scientists Who Believe in a Creator, and Why.

There is nothing in Science that preclude scientists in not believing in a Creator. Rather it is appreciable and very appropriate, as I understand, that they believe in the Creator.
The Creator- the Wise has used systems to create hence we find processes in everything that exists.
Does Science support non-believing, please?
I don't agree with it, please. Right?

Regards

It is interesting that those I see here who absolutely without question believe in the certainty of evolution as the reason for life also say that it (evolution) alone is the reason life happens. Now the question is if someone who strictly believes in the Darwinian model of evolution believes that it (evolution) just happened to happen.

 

[paarsurrey]

It is interesting that those I see here who absolutely without question believe in the certainty of evolution as the reason for life also say that it (evolution) alone is the reason life happens. Now the question is if someone who strictly believes in the Darwinian model of evolution believes that it (evolution) just happened to happen.

The truthful religion is not against evolution, please. Adam was also evolved in millions of years as did his fellow humans, his peculiarity is that he was the first human with whom God/Allah/YHVH conversed directly, I understand.
Right?

Regards

 

[Bear Wild]

Well, ants and gorillas, despite brain sizes, still apparently do not feel the need for clothing.

Neither do some humans. Why should they anyway if they do not need them? Please explain what your point is.

 

[Bear Wild]

It is interesting that those I see here who absolutely without question believe in the certainty of evolution as the reason for life also say that it (evolution) alone is the reason life happens. Now the question is if someone who strictly believes in the Darwinian model of evolution believes that it (evolution) just happened to happen.

I really wish you would at least learn about the topic you disagree with. No current scientists strictly believe in the Darwinian model of evolution. By even saying this you are admitting that you have no understanding of the modern theory of evolution. There are many things that Darwin presented that are still relevant today but Darwin did not have the knowledge of evolution or the current dating techniques. His amazing theory has grown diversified and incorporated many other scientific fields such as ecology which was also just starting to develop during his time. I believe you do not seriously want to learn about evolution because you are afraid you will finally have to admit it is correct and you believe your religious beliefs will then fall apart. This does not have to be the outcome since many theists and polytheists not only accept the theory of evolution but embrace it and cherish the beauty of this amazing creative force without losing their theistic or polytheistic beliefs.

 

[Bear Wild]

ok, you can say what you want. I'll leave it this way -- despite the fossils and similarities of gorillas, chimpanzees, using these things as evidence, including similar dna as if that "proves" it, or it's evidence as you would say (not proof of course...) it still is not evidence, and if evidence is not a sure thing of the theory, well, all I can say is once again -- hope all goes well for you. BTW, I'm speaking on the basis of -- no realllll proof. You might want to say the evidence supports the theory -- dna similarity, looks, fish wih feet or legs, again -- and you might say this is bizarre -- still no need that gorillas have evolved to want to wear underwear. Ever wonder why? After you do that, maybe you can believe the idea that homosexuality has evolved in the human genes as scientists seem to be proposing now. So maybe there will be mandates or agreements that if humans want the human race to continue, they'll have to use the genes available to do it.

I must admit I have never wondered about gorillas wearing underwear. What does this have to do with your argument about evolution. Hermit crabs wear shells so does that mean they are more human like? Or is your next argument that they do not have fashion shows like humans. This is a bizarre argument. Your obsession with proof is meaningless. You cannot provide any proof for your argument. You cannot even give any reasonable evidence. The theory of evolution has such extensive evidence that most people cannot even keep up with. Your argument fails because you have nothing to support your side and degenerate the argument to proof which is meaningless in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

I must admit I have never wondered about gorillas wearing underwear. What does this have to do with your argument about evolution. Hermit crabs wear shells so does that mean they are more human like? Or is your next argument that they do not have fashion shows like humans. This is a bizarre argument. Your obsession with proof is meaningless. You cannot provide any proof for your argument. You cannot even give any reasonable evidence. The theory of evolution has such extensive evidence that most people cannot even keep up with. Your argument fails because you have nothing to support your side and degenerate the argument to proof which is meaningless in science.

I am looking at the conclusions based on the theory of evolution. I no longer accept the all-encompassing idea. Gorillas (I use them as a so-called recent step or 'near relative' of humans in the process said to be evolution) not only do not make clothing for themselves, but there is one more step. They do not have the ability to write down their history. Hermit crabs are not born with shells. They must look for them in order to survive. They don't need stores to get clothing from. Only humans feel the need to make and wear clothing. Now we can go into what some might think is the need for humans to put on clothing due to weather conditions, but dogs and cats that go to the bathroom do not feel the need to put on protective gear. Hermit crabs are interesting, however.

 

[YoursTrue]

I must admit I have never wondered about gorillas wearing underwear. What does this have to do with your argument about evolution. Hermit crabs wear shells so does that mean they are more human like? Or is your next argument that they do not have fashion shows like humans. This is a bizarre argument. Your obsession with proof is meaningless. You cannot provide any proof for your argument. You cannot even give any reasonable evidence. The theory of evolution has such extensive evidence that most people cannot even keep up with. Your argument fails because you have nothing to support your side and degenerate the argument to proof which is meaningless in science.

While I have taken the covid-19 shot and appreciate the science that enabled it, again -- going back to gorillas have not manufactured clothes. Neither have hermit crabs. That's the evidence for that because it's the reality, in real time, and the differences between humans and hermit crabs. And gorillas. About clothing.

 

[YoursTrue]

I must admit I have never wondered about gorillas wearing underwear. What does this have to do with your argument about evolution. Hermit crabs wear shells so does that mean they are more human like? Or is your next argument that they do not have fashion shows like humans. This is a bizarre argument. Your obsession with proof is meaningless. You cannot provide any proof for your argument. You cannot even give any reasonable evidence. The theory of evolution has such extensive evidence that most people cannot even keep up with. Your argument fails because you have nothing to support your side and degenerate the argument to proof which is meaningless in science.

From what I understand now from scientists about science, nothing, absolutely nothing can be proven in science.

 

[YoursTrue]

The truthful religion is not against evolution, please. Adam was also evolved in millions of years as did his fellow humans, his peculiarity is that he was the first human with whom God/Allah/YHVH conversed directly, I understand.
Right?

Regards

If I believed in the theory of evolution I might figure you're correct when you say that Adam & other "fellow humans" evolved in millions of years. But I don't. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes in some rather substantial ways, for which I see no validation (in other words, no proof).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If I believed in the theory of evolution I might figure you're correct when you say that Adam & other "fellow humans" evolved in millions of years. But I don't. In fact, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes in some rather substantial ways, for which I see no validation (in other words, no proof).

There is overwhelming evidence. Try taking a course in biological anthropology, just audit it for a semester. Learn a thing or two.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, since I'm not really discussing the Bible here, because the topic is more or less why evolution is true, (or not true) while it (evolution, the theory of) may seem logical, let's go back to the beginning and please do say what is the first bit of evidence for (or declaring by evidence) the process. (Shouldn't take long...)

There is no "first" piece of evidence. That request makes no sense.

The fact is that evolution is supported by a great multitude of independent lines of evidence, where each line itself consists of mountains of individual pieces of evidence.

There's no one single piece of evidence, that makes evolution convincing or acceptable. It is in fact the combination of all of it that does.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok, you can say what you want. I'll leave it this way -- despite the fossils and similarities of gorillas, chimpanzees, using these things as evidence, including similar dna as if that "proves" it, or it's evidence as you would say (not proof of course...) it still is not evidence, and if evidence is not a sure thing of the theory, well, all I can say is once again -- hope all goes well for you.

DNA is not evidence?


ps: you, unsurprisingly, completely misunderstood what I said about how common ancestry is a genetic fact and how evolution theory is the body of explanation that explains that fact (among many others).
If evolution theory (descend with modification followed by selection) is shown to be false, then the facts remains. Species will genetically still be related in a family tree. This is simply how the collective of DNA is arranged. Sequence it, map it out and a family tree is revealed. It didn't have to be that way, but there you go: it is.

You can either deal with that or remain in denial.

BTW, I'm speaking on the basis of -- no realllll proof. You might want to say the evidence supports the theory -- dna similarity, looks, fish wih feet or legs, again -- and you might say this is bizarre -- still no need that gorillas have evolved to want to wear underwear. Ever wonder why?

So your argument against evolution theory, is the fact that gorilla's don't wear underwear?

You expect me to treat that "argument" seriously?

After you do that, maybe you can believe the idea that homosexuality has evolved in the human genes as scientists seem to be proposing now. So maybe there will be mandates or agreements that if humans want the human race to continue, they'll have to use the genes available to do it.

Now, now... be nice.