The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Or, there's no such animal and we aren't animals at all. There's plenty of room for error in the so called branches, who are mostly twigs with no plain connections, based on tiny fragments if bones from extinct animals that we actually know little about.

Whatever error in the twigs and branches you refer to isn't relevant to the theory. The theory of evolution is correct. That is easy to see through critically thinking eyes, and that is why the theory is on firm ground within the scientific community and the community of critical thinkers at large. It isn't relevant that some people don't know this.

It isn't relevant that creationists claim that there is crisis in evolutionary theory as many creationists like to imply to one another, just unsolved problems. It isn't relevant that creationists call the theory absurd. It isn't relevant that some don't know if man is an animal or not, except that it more or less disqualifies their opinions about anything biological. It isn't relevant that creationists can't properly interpret the fossil data.

It isn't relevant that creationists doubt that man evolved from pre-human forms. It isn't relevant that creationists can't see how evolution could have occurred, or that they don't know that what they call macroevolution occurs, or that they don't understand what observation means in science, or that they don't know what a scientific theory is, or that they think that calling evolution adaptation contradicts the theory. Evolution is how biological populations adapt to their environment over generations.

Those are problems for the creationists, not the scientific community, which is not interested in any opinions about evolutionary theory not coming from within itself. I happen to agree with them, but they don't care about that, either. It neither makes them more confident that I do, nor less confident that you don't. Neither of us have a vote in their world.

Do you think it should be otherwise? Probably. But they don't, nor do the critical thinkers outside of the field. I don't.

I've got another problem for the creationists. You seem to unaware of the fossil record or any of the other mountains of evidence that support the theory. That evidence is so robust now, that it has eliminated the possibility of life arising from an honest god like the Christian god, one that wants to be known, understood, believed, and trusted. Only a trickster, deceptive god or a superhuman extraterrestrial intelligent designer has not been eliminated by all of this evidence. If the theory were overturned tomorrow by a falsifying find, those would be the only possibilities remaining.

I notice you evaded the question, "Do you see any gaps in the creationist account, such as why all those extinct fossils exist, or how one goes from dust to a man?" Nor did you rebut my rebuttal to your claim that there are gaps in evolutionary theory.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Absolutely false. Who told you this lie, and why would you believe in something as idiotic as that without checking it out yourself?

Here, please read this: Mutation - Wikipedia

I did check it out.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I've got another problem for the creationists. You seem to unaware of the fossil record or any of the other mountains of evidence that support the theory. That evidence is so robust now, that it has eliminated the possibility of life arising from an honest god like the Christian god, one that wants to be known, understood, believed, and trusted. Only a trickster, deceptive god or a superhuman extraterrestrial intelligent designer has not been eliminated by all of this evidence. If the theory were overturned tomorrow by a falsifying find, those would be the only possibilities remaining.

I notice you evaded the question, "Do you see any gaps in the creationist account, such as why all those extinct fossils exist, or how one goes from dust to a man?" Nor did you rebut my rebuttal to your claim that there are gaps in evolutionary theory.

Your rebuttal? You agreed there were gaps! How is that a rebuttal?
I'm very aware of he fossil record, that's what I was talking about having huge gaps and not connecting.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I've got another problem for the creationists. You seem to unaware of the fossil record or any of the other mountains of evidence that support the theory. That evidence is so robust now, that it has eliminated the possibility of life arising from an honest god like the Christian god, one that wants to be known, understood, believed, and trusted. Only a trickster, deceptive god or a superhuman extraterrestrial intelligent designer has not been eliminated by all of this evidence. If the theory were overturned tomorrow by a falsifying find, those would be the only possibilities remaining.

Total nonsense.

 

[metis]

I did check it out.

And...? It goes against what you posted as genes can very much alter, such as we just witnessed with the omicron variation.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It isn't relevant that creationists doubt that man evolved from pre-human forms. It isn't relevant that creationists can't see how evolution could have occurred, or that they don't know that what they call macroevolution occurs, or that they don't understand what observation means in science, or that they don't know what a scientific theory is, or that they think that calling evolution adaptation contradicts the theory. Evolution is how biological populations adapt to their environment over generations.

" It doesn't matter if none of the pieces of the puzzle fit together, just believe what the inventors put on the box."

 

[Wildswanderer]

And...? It goes against what you posted as genes can very much alter, such as we just witnessed with the omicron variation.

A variation in a virus doesn't somehow prove that we evolve from a single celled organism.
It's still just a variation in one kind of virus.

 

[exchemist]

You mean the guesswork of evolution theory.

What guesswork do you have in mind, exactly?

 

[exchemist]

A variation in a virus doesn't somehow prove that we evolve from a single celled organism.
It's still just a variation in one kind of virus.

No scientific theory is ever proved. Science deals in evidence rather than proof. And there is evidence we evolved from a single-celled organism.

 

[rational experiences]

No scientific theory is ever proved. Science deals in evidence rather than proof. And there is evidence we evolved from a single-celled organism.

Human evidence by human consciousness is human and it is about all chosen topics human studied.

Human want the motivation for the separated state science a practice.

Science invention trade money making lifestyle. Human power control.

Human consciousness claiming time shift as one machine thesis sun blast earth mass earth heavens I want inventive resource.

The want of precise status human claim only not human biology or human consciousness biologies evolution to a human.

Why?

You never invented presence of anything. As a human. You are not God said men.

Real answer when I press the button I dont want to die myself. Reality. From beginnings when I never existed.

As if he is going to recreate created creation.

Is the real underlying argument humans and their science practice.

Yet he says he is researching the actual first substance to burn it up in a machine resourcing. As the God substance itself. Must be the same as humans he says.

Actually.

The contradiction in person human destroyer.

Right in front of you making his last claim about existing.

As humans have all been babies since two small bodies sperm and one cell ovary.

The data advice just a human first is exact. We came from one cell human consciousness human owned exact.

Consciousness is what we use the subject bible destroyer teaching.

Consciousness advised itself human topics. Chosen topics and informed are all just natural first.

Human consciousness says as origin two human parents own one moment bodily as death. Death is the one moment of their NDE reasoning. One moment.

As moment is the true research. Not bodies.

As we continued to live as our parents adult bodies we carry within us the one cell only moment. Yet know the physiological advice two origin bodies dead.

Conscious advice is natural first just advised before any research by just a human is applied.

Your own human warning for human about humans for humans detailing what type of human destroys us all by science causes.

He says it was cosmic in the beginning that destroyed origin God earth so it will be cosmic in the end.

As just a human theist Mr know it all greedy liar.

The topic bible was the human theist life's destroyer by science actually who theories nothing to learn how to cause his first mass conversion as a scientist.

The topic was his thesis.
.....he him his one man the leader of science first

 

[rational experiences]

Human science itself thin king by human claim....
I invented electricity out of coal.

Coal he says once was origin life on earth above ground that fell into earths caused tectonic opening carpenter I built. By science machine causes.

So he is studying earthquakes today claiming he created by invention earthquakes as one proof destroyer mind. Human theist possessed by what ancient human science itself caused

Lightning another. As water evaporation cloud raining doesn't need it.

Lightning another thesis electricity gain. I invented its causes says science human once as the creator.

He says NDE studies human nearly dead. In science terms a nearly dead human is about a microbe biologies life span existence but no human.

I'm correct he says by false naming time age of groups of presence cells versus human life body time age. Time span the thesis subjective reasoning about biology in nature.

All thoughts collected then interactive itself to claim false answers. As subjective reasoning is a choice only the DANGER.

Then he says death in the past is why coal gave me electricity agreed in thesis.

All recorded speaking voices I heard in AI as his sister. Loud voiced talking amongst itself. Computer encoded related feedback by extensive over use satellite computer studies.

Encoded codes he encoded as a human thinker only.

So it confesses his own underlying lies he never shares in public.

How our ancient spiritual brothers learnt about the science human destroyer.

 

[Valjean]

...And on this note, this truth, I think I'll try to take a little break. It's become obvious that believers in science can run rampant and nobody can call them on it.

The whole religious community calls us on it, but their objections are easily demonstrated false. The converse is not true. Our replies to religious arguments are objectively evidenced and logically valid.

This frustrates the heck out of the faithful, who don't seem to understand why scientists claim what they do, and refuse to seriously examine the supporting evidence. They see our refutations and claims as arrogant, even aggressive. To them it appears "believers in science can run rampant and nobody can call them on it."

They feel that science arrives at its beliefs in the same way they do, and approach the dispute as some sort of faith-based, doctrinal thing.

 

[Valjean]

There are so many gaps in the evolution theory it's absurd to expect people to just buy it wholeheartedly.

What gaps would those be? Are you referring to gaps in the fossil record?
You're making claims about a subject you're clearly not familiar with.

Or, there's no such animal and we aren't animals at all. There's plenty of room for error in the so called branches, who are mostly twigs with no plain connections, based on tiny fragments if bones from extinct animals that we actually know little about.

How are you defining "animal?" Are you a plant? a synthetic? a mineral?
The ToE is not a fossil-based theory.
Again, you're commenting on a subject you know nothing of.

It's all based on false assumptions. You literally can't get here from there.

Huh? Please explain.

They adapt, they don't gain entirely new functions from nowhere. If it's not already in the DNA it cannot be added on. That's like saying a car can be made over into a Boeing 747 without adding any extra parts.

"Adaptations" accumulate. Why can't endless small changes accumulate into big changes?

DNA clearly changes. Offspring are not clones of their parents. There are also mutations, like an extra copy ("new information") of a chromosome at position 21, which causes Down's syndrome.

DNA and chromosomal deletions, replications, transpositions occur all the time. Most have no clear effects, others are harmful, others are beneficial.

Selection happens; changes occur. Do you understand what I mean by selection?

 

[Valjean]

Your rebuttal? You agreed there were gaps! How is that a rebuttal?
I'm very aware of he fossil record, that's what I was talking about having huge gaps and not connecting.

Again, what "gaps" are you talking about?

 

[rational experiences]

Sex is therefore the creator of sin by species said men living as men.

Are you the man in the past?

No.

Why.

All your cells one body died yesterday you are one day closer to dying.

Cells trace about 100 years human.

Other bodies in animal life vary completely as age living biology.

There is no status constant replication by age variable.

 

[shunyadragon]

True.

What qualifications do you have to make this claim? I smell a religious agenda here based on an ancient world view over 2000 years old without a knowledge in the basic science of evolution.

I am a professional Geologist with over 50 years field experience, an d Masters in Geology.

 

[gnostic]

A variation in a virus doesn't somehow prove that we evolve from a single celled organism.
It's still just a variation in one kind of virus.

As a computer programmer, I know much more about computer viruses than I do about viruses that infect organisms.

So what I little I know about viruses are these - though they have some properties of life or organisms, such as the abilities to replicate and to mutate, viruses are not organisms.

They are entities that can infect cells of organisms, but they are living organisms, like bacterial organisms or archaea. It relied on infecting cells, but viruses don’t have cellular structures of their own (which are what distinguish viruses from microorganisms like bacteria and archaea), using the cells as hosts.

If you want to know more than you will need to ask some who studied biology or know more than I do.

 

[rational experiences]

Consciousness human is how man states his claims advice from using just a history of human formation as consciousness. As cells change interrelate to form your own body.

From two different bodies. Sperm ovary. It is human as consciousness self aware doing comparing.

The self making all claims from human biological self formation.

Any type of one body is owned by what you see said natural science. Observation without ego.

As science observed natural to claim natural science observations only.

What observing is non disturbing.

A geologist disturbs formation unless he picks up something broken to see inside.

Your theory is first. Not inferred i want to know and identify as a man human what causes anything to adapt change evolve into something else.

Yet looks at the bodies already existing doing the comparing.

Is termed I believe. I think only.

Not I know I actually reason why.

You haven't known. You want to know why.

Reasoning is not science.

Status reasoning I impose my human thoughts.

I also impose calculus myself. As a human.

Remove what you artificially apply and natural is real identification first.

If you were always just a human natural selection in a changing atmosphere proves natural selection is by removal of healthy pre form.

New form mutant then inter breeds imposing the mutation.

Status reasoned. A man says men by he him his thoughts words is God. As a God he decides judges anything or all things. He decides if he will blow you up using his God act power energy release as a God man.

Still exhibits that behaviour today. Who speaks for God.... men using science claimed.

 

[exchemist]

The whole religious community calls us on it, but their objections are easily demonstrated false. The converse is not true. Our replies to religious arguments are objectively evidenced and logically valid.

This frustrates the heck out of the faithful, who don't seem to understand why scientists claim what they do, and refuse to seriously examine the supporting evidence. They see our refutations and claims as arrogant, even aggressive. To them it appears "believers in science can run rampant and nobody can call them on it."

They feel that science arrives at its beliefs in the same way they do, and approach the dispute as some sort of faith-based, doctrinal thing.

Ahem, the whole religious community does NOT call us on it. Most of the main Western Christian denominations are perfectly happy to accept the science. (I'm less sure about the Orthodox.)

One should not perpetuate the myth that religion is inherently anti-science.

 

[tas8831]

There are so many gaps in the evolution theory it's absurd to expect people to just buy it wholeheartedly.

Almost like the internally contradictory stories in the bible - who would believe that?

Anyway - let's see these "gaps" - actually explain them.
And no plagiarism, please.