"Sir David Attenborough says humans have stopped evolving"

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What can we say then? You are simply refusing to accept reality, and that does compromise the quality of dialog to a huge extent.

Um, Luis, a dog producing a dog IS reality. It is the only reality that you and I have ever saw.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I think so. I'll still try my best:

- Evolution is NOT Pokemon.

It might as well be. Millions of years ago, all kinds of cartoonish things were occurring, right?

- Evolution does NOT say human popped out of monkey vagina.

Yes it does, actually. It just took a long time.

- The concept of species is out of convenience (contrast the concept of elements, which does have physical reality)
- Strictly speaking there has never been the "first human/elephant/dog/cat/whale/rat". Every individual organism that has ever lived is a transition.

A transition of what? Something that it wasn't before, right??? Seriously people.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I accepted evolution as a theist. My atheism had nothing to do with evolution. It never has and never does. All evolution counters is YEC. Hell it doesn't even technically counter ID in the broadest sense.

It contradicts Christian theism. God doesn't need a trial and error process to create anything. I can speak on other religion, but at least MY God doesn't.

But how much do you know of DNA? Did you know we can litterally count the differences in our genes? And you have admitted before that it is possible for mutations correct? And it is possible for mutations to occur on multiple occasions as time goes on?

Every change is limited to its own kind. I don't care how many dogs your breed and how long you breed them, you will always end up with a dog. Always. No exceptions. So anything else is not only speculation, it is religious.

What is the problem with accepting the idea that if you have enough changes the species will be different? DNA alone is the smoking gun if fossil evidence wasn't enough. Its not faith based. Its just as clear as the earth going round the sun.

DNA is one of the problems. Our DNA is the code that makes us who we are. It contains information that is the blueprint for our existence. There are no leading theories for organic evolution. We don't know how life came from non-life, but yet we can bypass that fundamental process and jump right to microevolution? Man, with our intelligent minds, do not yet know how life could have come from non-life. But nature, which doesn't know a dang thing, not only knew, but did it. So we are being outsmarted by something that isn't smart.

Well #1 Charles Darwin wouldn't be anywhere in an Atheist afterlife.
#2 why would Jesus judge you for figuring out science in the world? I mean his dad made it all.
#3 What if you get there and its Allah and he is ******?

To much historicity for Jesus Christ to even consider Allah. Nice try, though.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nor does it bear the slightest resemblance to the theory of evolution.

Wait a minute, so animals were producing different kinds of animals? Yet we have dogs, which is a different animal than a cat...a snake, which is a different animal than a turtle, and bears, which are different animals than a giraffe. Wow.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Oh, the irony.. Evolution is all about negating ID? So it's not just science, it's history you're chronically challenged about? So after ID was mooted, someone went back in time to plant the ideas for evolution so it could come first?

As I have said in my recent reply to you in the other thread, evolution is simply the best explanation for the evidence: it's not the best explanation "because" it doesn't have God it in, it just explains what we can see without needing any kind of god.

Has it explained cosmic and organic evolution yet? I will wait.

"Instead of Charles Darwin"???


..when one facepalm simply isn't enough

Well, I have a choice, I can either place my faith in what Jesus taught about the origins of species, or I can place my faith in what Darwin taught about the origins of species....Jesus Christ, all the way!!!!

 

[secret2]

To paraphrase Call_of_the_Wild himself, WOW.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Ah yes, Call_of_the_Wild the ornithologist. You never did get round to answering these questions:

I just knocked that out in like 2 seconds. Next.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

It contradicts Christian theism. God doesn't need a trial and error process to create anything. I can speak on other religion, but at least MY God doesn't.

So you and your human wisdom knows exaclty how god operates? Quite bold as that contradicts your theology far more than evolution does. How dare you claim to know how god did anything.

How do you know he didn't utilize natrual processes to create life? Is it impossible for god to have done it? If its not impossible then why do you fight it so vigirously?

Every change is limited to its own kind. I don't care how many dogs your breed and how long you breed them, you will always end up with a dog. Always. No exceptions. So anything else is not only speculation, it is religious.

So can I have a mutation in my genes? Or can my son have one when he is concived? Do you admit that?

How many changes would it take to be noticable?

what stops these chagnes from accumulating?

What about the iron clad DNA evidence?

DNA is one of the problems. Our DNA is the code that makes us who we are. It contains information that is the blueprint for our existence. There are no leading theories for organic evolution. We don't know how life came from non-life, but yet we can bypass that fundamental process and jump right to microevolution? Man, with our intelligent minds, do not yet know how life could have come from non-life. But nature, which doesn't know a dang thing, not only knew, but did it. So we are being outsmarted by something that isn't smart.

Abiogensis actually covers this and the rest is evolution. So this is a blatent lie.

To much historicity for Jesus Christ to even consider Allah. Nice try, though.

Jesus is in Islam. So point null in void?

 

[LuisDantas]

Um, Luis, a dog producing a dog IS reality. It is the only reality that you and I have ever saw.

Do you realize that you are avoiding the point?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

All changes are limited to the "kind". We have many different varieties of dogs, but they are all dogs. Never an exception as far as we've seen. Unless you seen something the rest of the world has never seen.

Please define kind or else stop using the term.

What I want is a paraphrase of how a mouse and a whale can come from the same kind of animal, WHATEVER IT WAS. I am not misstating anything, you are telling me that the animals of today came from a different kind of animal from the past, I am calling this BS. There is no misstating, that is me not accepting your religion due to lack of observational evidence.
I agree, that can be observed. Next...
I agree, we can observe this. Next...
That is why I like the distinction between microevolution, and macroevolution. A lot of people like to use those two terms, but I find it helpful. We can observe microevolution, but we can't observe macroevolution.

I am glad that you can accept micro-evolution, however, there is absolutely no valid scientific way of differentiating the two as to render the concept of 'macro-evolution' invalid while maintaining 'micro-evolution' occurs. None.

Fossils is not evidence for evolution.

What then are they? And where would the evidence be of currently existing animals within evidence of early earth organisms? Where are rabbits in the precambrian?

Genetic similarities can mean common designer. The designer had a blueprint that worked, and he used the same blueprint as the makeup for all of his designs. That is my hypothesis, and yours is no better than mines because guess what, neither one of us were there.

Neither you nor I were there I agree, the fossils on the other hand were there. So we can indeed use them as a reputable source of data about their time. Unlike a book written millions of years later.

Common design. And speaking of DNA, in order to even have evolution take off on its mindless and blind journey, you have to have life, which means you have to have a universe that is permitted for life. So before you get to micro or macro evolution, you have to have cosmic evolution, and organic evolution, and each one of these evolutionary processes are practically impossible if there is nothing (or no one) there to orchestrate the process. So you (evolutionists) are just bypassing the "life from non-life" problem you have and jumping straight to the "this is how species evolved" stage, which is putting the cart before the horse.

A very valid point - but note that evolution does NOT tell us how life originated, it doesnt even attempt to. Evolution is a theory hat deals with how life diversifies and becomes attuned to the environment in which it is present - it in no way attempts to posit a cause of the existence of life (a replicating entity).

Other theories DO attempt to posit an origin or cause, such as abiogenesis, but this is quite separate to evolution and indeed has a far lesser degree of support in comparison to the extremely well demonstrated theory of evolution.

I will still say no, it is not reasonable. I don't see how/why a omnipotent God would need a process like evolution to create life. Evolution/natural selection is a trial and error process. With a omnipotent God, there would BE no error. So I don't find it reasonable.

It may be reasonable if you believe in a deistic god, but it isn't reasonable if you believe in the Christian God, which I believe. Either way, I maintain that evolution is not something that could have occurred on its own mindless and blind merits.

Fair enough. Unfortunate that your midset is so narrow with regards to that, but oh well.

Since the universe is contingent, the origin of its domain is not for scientific inquiry. Science is simply incapable of explaining such things, and where science ends, metaphysics begins.

Contingent on what exactly? and how would this render science incapable of performing reliable inquiry as to the 'origin' of the universe (if there is one)?
Also why would you mention universal origins when we are discussing evolution of organisms on a certain planet?

 

[johnhanks]

Wait a minute, so animals were producing different kinds of animals? Yet we have dogs, which is a different animal than a cat...a snake, which is a different animal than a turtle, and bears, which are different animals than a giraffe. Wow.

I just knocked that out in like 2 seconds. Next.

These are what you call answers? Evasion, thy name is Call_of_the_Wild.

Just what features do define a bird, Call?

 

[philbo]

Has it explained cosmic and organic evolution yet? I will wait.

er.. wut???

Take the fossil record, and see what it looks like - that's all you have to do. Don't start with "this is trying to tell me something I don't want to hear", just look at fossils, what they look like, and the ages of them/the rocks they come from.

You may think that your god didn't need trial and error, but either there was a humungous amount of it, or your god planted loads of fossils so that anyone with more than half a brain would look at them and think that's what was happening.

Note that this has nothing to do with "cosmic" evolution (whatever you happen to think that is), and to assert that it needs to be would be simply dishonest: it's not about determining what your end-point is before you start looking, it's about looking to see where the evidence leads.

Well, I have a choice, I can either place my faith in what Jesus taught about the origins of species, or I can place my faith in what Darwin taught about the origins of species....Jesus Christ, all the way!!!!

I must have missed the evidence-based deductions on the origins of species by Jesus Christ. Seeing as you have absolute faith in it, I suppose you'd be able to link to exactly where Jesus talked about the origins of species. I don't believe Jesus' biological treatises were included in the NT, so exactly where are they?


Sounds to me you're covering your ears, going "la la la" at things you don't want to listen to: you'll not learn anything that way, and will continue to come across as wilfully ignorant and stupid.

I just knocked that out in like 2 seconds. Next.

It shows. No thought, nothing remotely worth saying.
Maybe you should try thinking about what you're posting next time.

And if you ever come out with a "none of my posts has ever been refuted" again, I'll outright call you a liar.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So you and your human wisdom knows exaclty how god operates? Quite bold as that contradicts your theology far more than evolution does. How dare you claim to know how god did anything.

First of all, I said evolution is a process of trial and ERROR, which it is. The keyword is ERROR. Why would God use a process of trial and ERROR to do anything when he is a perfect God. Makes no sense.

How do you know he didn't utilize natrual processes to create life?

See answer above.

Is it impossible for god to have done it?

If he is perfect, then yes.

 

[Skwim]

First of all, I said evolution is a process of trial and ERROR, which it is. The keyword is ERROR. Why would God use a process of trial and ERROR to do anything when he is a perfect God. Makes no sense.

Because even he is capable of making mistakes.

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the Lord (was sorry) that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:14
And the Lord repented (changed his mind) of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
​

One doesn't repent, say they're sorry, and grieve non-mistakes. They do this for the mistakes, errors, they've made. And because by definition, perfect doesn't allow for mistakes and errors, god can't be perfect.

So, it makes good sense that he would have to use a process of trial and error.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Please define kind or else stop using the term.

I will have to do you like I will do a 6 year old. I want you to imagine a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and an elephant. I want you to tell me which animal is different from the rest. If you say elephant, then you know what is meant by "kind". If you say anything other than elephant, you need to see a doctor.

I am glad that you can accept micro-evolution, however, there is absolutely no valid scientific way of differentiating the two as to render the concept of 'macro-evolution' invalid while maintaining 'micro-evolution' occurs. None.

That is if you assume that macroevolution occurs in the first place. The difference is we can observe one and not the other. That is a key difference, because science is supposed to be about observation. So far, there has been no observation, but there has been alot of speculation. We see all different kinds of dogs...now whether you want to call that speciation, microevolution, etc...whatever...we can observe it. All of this "common ancestor" stuff..there is no observation, but there is a lot of speculation.

What then are they?

Remains of animals that have been DEAD a very long time.

And where would the evidence be of currently existing animals within evidence of early earth organisms?

The cart before the horse fallacy again. You are asking about evidence of currently existing animals of early earth organism when you haven’t even explained how life can come from non-life. Explain how life can come from non-life first, and then based on that come up with theories.

Where are rabbits in the precambrian?

I don’t know, but I would expect we should find tons upon tons of actual transitional fossils (which we don't) if there is this so called “fossil record”.

Neither you nor I were there I agree, the fossils on the other hand were there. So we can indeed use them as a reputable source of data about their time. Unlike a book written millions of years later.

The biology books that students are being taught from were also written millions of years later.

A very valid point - but note that evolution does NOT tell us how life originated, it doesnt even attempt to. Evolution is a theory hat deals with how life diversifies and becomes attuned to the environment in which it is present - it in no way attempts to posit a cause of the existence of life (a replicating entity).

The cart before the horse yet again.

Other theories DO attempt to posit an origin or cause, such as abiogenesis, but this is quite separate to evolution and indeed has a far lesser degree of support in comparison to the extremely well demonstrated theory of evolution.

How is a theory that hasn’t been observed well demonstrated? You can only demonstrate something you can observe. I can’t demonstrate to you how Kareem Abdul Jabbar used to shoot the “hook” shot unless I observed him doing it. The fact of the matter is, macroevolution has never been observed, and it is based on a presupposition that evolution is true in the first place.

Contingent on what exactly?

Contingent based on the fact that it didn’t have to be here. The fact that it IS here when it didn't have to be cries out for an external explanation.

and how would this render science incapable of performing reliable inquiry as to the 'origin' of the universe (if there is one)?

Because you cannot use science to explain the origin of its own domain. If I asked you to explain to me the origins of your computer, and you cannot use any explanation that is OUTSIDE of the computer, you wouldn’t be able to do it, now would you?

Also why would you mention universal origins when we are discussing evolution of organisms on a certain planet?

Because if there is no universe, there is no life, and if there is no life, there is no evolution. If you can’t go back in time and explain things retrospectively, how can you pick any given point moving forward and say “this is where it starts”?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Because even he is capable of making mistakes.
Genesis 6:6

And it repented the Lord (was sorry) that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/627-genesis-6-6-did-god-repent

Exodus 32:14

And the Lord repented (changed his mind) of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.
​

God's actions are sometimes dependent upon our actions. Suppose God decided to punish me for something that I did, but I repent, so God no longer punishes me. He was going to, but now he won't because the circumstances changed. No problems there.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I will have to do you like I will do a 6 year old. I want you to imagine a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and an elephant. I want you to tell me which animal is different from the rest. If you say elephant, then you know what is meant by "kind". If you say anything other than elephant, you need to see a doctor.

You can't even answer a simple question, can you? Unless you can clearly a concisely define what animals belong in what categories and why they belong there, your categorization of "kind" is meaningless. So, define it properly or stop using the term.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I will have to do you like I will do a 6 year old. I want you to imagine a lion, tiger, cheetah, leopard, and an elephant. I want you to tell me which animal is different from the rest. If you say elephant, then you know what is meant by "kind". If you say anything other than elephant, you need to see a doctor.

Understood - you cant define it. They are ALL different from the others, some are more different than others. But in no way have you identified what kind means. Perhaps this nonsense works on a 6 year old who has no understanding of biology, someone you wish to indoctrinate before they actually understand science - but if you cannot provide a definition of your terms then they become without basis particularly when attempting to converse within a highly technical field such as biology.

That is if you assume that macroevolution occurs in the first place. The difference is we can observe one and not the other. That is a key difference, because science is supposed to be about observation. So far, there has been no observation, but there has been alot of speculation. We see all different kinds of dogs...now whether you want to call that speciation, microevolution, etc...whatever...we can observe it. All of this "common ancestor" stuff..there is no observation, but there is a lot of speculation.

No seriously, no way to differentiate the two such that one is valid and the other not - it is EXACTLY the same mechanism.

And we CAN observe DNA commonalities, hierarchical similarities including redundant features (which includes those features which if designed would be considered incredibly bad design); we can see this across species (indeed between plants and animals), you can call this evidence of a common designer if you like - it also shows how such 'designs' were constructed, it is a recording of biological history.

The cart before the horse fallacy again. You are asking about evidence of currently existing animals of early earth organism when you haven’t even explained how life can come from non-life. Explain how life can come from non-life first, and then based on that come up with theories.

How about answering the question rather than attempting to obfuscate and use red herrings in lieu of addressing the problem. Among the mountains of evidence of early earth life, there is absolutely NO evidence of any modern organisms. Why is there not?

As for life origins, there are multiple scientific hypotheses on the matter, none as well DEMONSTRATED as evolution, but I consider abiogenesis the most promising. That really is besides the point when we are discussing he diversity of life rather than it's origins though; in fact the ONLY people who conflate the two are a subset of those who believe in design because they view the two as synchronous, which there is absolutely no evidence for.

I don’t know, but I would expect we should find tons upon tons of actual transitional fossils (which we don't) if there is this so called “fossil record”.

We do. Earliest lagomorph Gomphos (actually http://www.amnh.org/science/papers/rabbit.php is probably a better link) the major characteristic which determine this organisms categorization is the denture and mode of movement despite the animal looking more like a cross between a rabbit and a rat.

Transitional fossils are such because of how we define the species, which is through assigning labels to a certain set of characteristics, therefore there is USUALLY going to be a large number of organisms that are considered transitional. We actually have the fossilized remains of millions of so called 'missing links' in museums and universities and the like, this is the same argument that is trotted out every so often out of a lack of understanding of biology. Though I should state that there are indeed some transitions which we have a far smaller sample of organisms from, this makes it difficult to tell what the precise evolutionary path was during that particular transition, however it does nothing to undermine the validity of the theory of evolution.

The biology books that students are being taught from were also written millions of years later.

Indeed! Which is why we cannot take them as infallible. What we can take as inerrant are the fossils which were there (though even there we exercise critical thinking and an awareness that they may not be a representative sample).

The cart before the horse yet again.

Trying to avoid the issue again.

How is a theory that hasn’t been observed well demonstrated? You can only demonstrate something you can observe. I can’t demonstrate to you how Kareem Abdul Jabbar used to shoot the “hook” shot unless I observed him doing it. The fact of the matter is, macroevolution has never been observed, and it is based on a presupposition that evolution is true in the first place.

We can see it - there is no difference between micro evolution and macro evolution other than the difference that you are constructing in your own mind so as to enable you to accept one and deny the other - it is precisely the same mechanism.

Also, would you not concede that viewing a video of him performing the hook shot would also work as an observation? Because if a recording counts, we have that - its called DNA.

Contingent based on the fact that it didn’t have to be here. The fact that it IS here when it didn't have to be cries out for an external explanation.

Because you cannot use science to explain the origin of its own domain. If I asked you to explain to me the origins of your computer, and you cannot use any explanation that is OUTSIDE of the computer, you wouldn’t be able to do it, now would you?

Because if there is no universe, there is no life, and if there is no life, there is no evolution. If you can’t go back in time and explain things retrospectively, how can you pick any given point moving forward and say “this is where it starts”?

Okay, so this has NOTHING to do with evolution or diversity of life. Got it. Then I am going to ignore this as it is an attempt to derail discussion.

 

[Skwim]

https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/627-genesis-6-6-did-god-repent

As asinine an explanation as they come. Moreover, I don't debate or even deal with the arguments of those not posting here on RF. Evidence, yes, but not arguments. So I couldn't care less what your Wayne Jackson has to say.

God's actions are sometimes dependent upon our actions. Suppose God decided to punish me for something that I did, but I repent, so God no longer punishes me. He was going to, but now he won't because the circumstances changed. No problems there.

Irrelevant because it's not a scenario in which god is repentant---sorry---for what he has done. In your scenario here god was already of a mind to not punish you if you repented. If he wasn't then one has to assume your repentance controlled god's decisions. Think that's the case; you repent so god has to not punish you?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

You can't even answer a simple question, can you? Unless you can clearly a concisely define what animals belong in what categories and why they belong there, your categorization of "kind" is meaningless. So, define it properly or stop using the term.

Wait a minute, so are you going to argue against the fact that a dog and a cat are different kinds of animals? Lets suppose this conversation at a pet store

*You walk in the pet store and see an employee*

You: Excuse me sir, may I have a look at your cats.

Employee: Sure, follow me.

*You and employee goes to the "dog" section*

Employee: Here is what we have

You: Um, sir, I asked to see the cats, and these are dogs

Employee: Well, they are both mammals, aren't they?

You: But a dog is a different kind of mammal, sir

Employee: Kind? Unless you can clearly a concisely define what animals belong in what categories and why they belong there, your categorization of "kind" is meaningless.

*Notice the bold print is your quote*

Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?