The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[Dan From Smithville]

But that would be like calling a chick that hatches from a chicken egg now something else. It's still a chicken. That ur-chicken was a chicken. That is why it laid a chicken egg.

Also how did you get that ur-chicken?

The ur-chicken, if I read this right is a red jungle fowl released in some misguided attempt to establish wild game bird populations in Georgia. It is the ancestor of the different varieties of chicken found throughout the world.

Would you expect a red jungle fowl to lay eggs that hatch into leghorns, Wyandottes or Jersey giants?

It finally occurs to me after all this time that you think the theory of evolution claims that species arise instantaneously from pre-existing species. The theory does not claim that nor does the evidence warrant such a conclusion. The theory does not say that birds hatched out of dinosaur eggs. The evidence does not say that either.

It is not an insult to point out that your understanding of evolution based on what you have said in this thread is flawed, inconsistent and in no way related to what is actually stated in science.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The ur-chicken, if I read this right is a red jungle fowl released in some misguided attempt to establish wild game bird populations in Georgia. It is the ancestor of the different varieties of chicken found throughout the world.

Would you expect a red jungle fowl to lay eggs that hatch into leghorns, Wyandottes or Jersey giants?

It finally occurs to me after all this time that you think the theory of evolution claims that species arise instantaneously from pre-existing species. The theory does not claim that nor does the evidence warrant such a conclusion. The theory does not say that birds hatched out of dinosaur eggs. The evidence does not say that either.

It is not an insult to point out that your understanding of evolution based on what you have said in this thread is flawed, inconsistent and in no way related to what is actually stated in science.

You are once again inaccurate in your evaluation of my understanding.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No - I do understand what you are saying. But you have to have something initially to evolve - right? So my question is how do you get that beginning creature based on evolution?

There is initially nothing there, to be able to evolve.

You don't. The theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin of life.

What you are really asking about and what you don't seem to understand at all is about the diversification of existing life.

When did egg laying arise in the fossil record? Compare and contrast the eggs of the different major groups that use them to reproduce? What are those similarities? What are the differences. Do all animals reproduce from eggs like chicken eggs? If no, why not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are once again inaccurate in your evaluation of my understanding.

I am not inaccurate in the evaluation of what you have communicated. If there is a disparity between your knowledge and what you have communicated, then my observation should be a sign for you to recognize and seek means to eliminate that disparity.

What the evidence tells me is that you don't have a very sound understanding of the theory or the evidence. You can show me that I'm wrong. It's up to you. It isn't an insult to realize errors or for others to recognize them and point them out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are once again inaccurate in your evaluation of my understanding.

What is it that the evidence indicates is the first living things? Is there evidence that these things laid eggs or reproduced with eggs?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I am not inaccurate in the evaluation of what you have communicated. If there is a disparity between your knowledge and what you have communicated, then my observation should be a sign for you to recognize and seek means to eliminate that disparity.

What the evidence tells me is that you don't have a very sound understanding of the theory or the evidence. You can show me that I'm wrong. It's up to you. It isn't an insult to realize errors or for others to recognize them and point them out.

I prefer to discuss this with someone else. Is it an insult to say that I feel like you like to argue rather than really debate?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are once again inaccurate in your evaluation of my understanding.

How do your cells reproduce?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I prefer to discuss this with someone else. Is it an insult to say that I feel like you like to argue rather than really debate.

Suit yourself. To be frank, I was losing interest in asking questions and not getting answers.

I wish you well. I'll pray for you.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I am not inaccurate in the evaluation of what you have communicated. If there is a disparity between your knowledge and what you have communicated, then my observation should be a sign for you to recognize and seek means to eliminate that disparity.

What the evidence tells me is that you don't have a very sound understanding of the theory or the evidence. You can show me that I'm wrong. It's up to you. It isn't an insult to realize errors or for others to recognize them and point them out.

See nothing substantive. Just argumentative.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry, you do not even get to ask those questions until you can demonstrate that there is some hope that you would understand the answer. You need to learn the basics of science. I am willing to help you learn if you are brave enough to learn.

Others are watching. So it is obvious that no believer in the process of evolution as posited by Darwin and others before and after have explained anything in reference to questions asked. Now I am watching a program about the holocaust and Jews that were killed. There were, of course, others murdered by the Nazi regime. Looking at populations of those countries involved -- very, very, v-e-r-y sad. What does the ToE offer insofar as a hope for the future? That we all die anyway? That's what it seems like insofar as you are concerned. Not sure about those who believe in God AND evolution...

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You don't. The theory of evolution is not a theory about the origin of life.

What you are really asking about and what you don't seem to understand at all is about the diversification of existing life.

When did egg laying arise in the fossil record? Compare and contrast the eggs of the different major groups that use them to reproduce? What are those similarities? What are the differences. Do all animals reproduce from eggs like chicken eggs? If no, why not?

When you claim man evolved from a monkey. That makes it about the origin of man's life.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No - I do understand what you are saying. But you have to have something initially to evolve - right? So my question is how do you get that beginning creature based on evolution?

There is initially nothing there, to be able to evolve.

The thread is about evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution. It is not a thread about abiogenesis, which is another thing altogether. Darwin himself made this clear in Origin of Species.

The question of how life began on earth has not yet been definitively answered. There are good hypotheses, but no general theory yet. Therefore, if you like, you can consider possibilities like creation, or implantation by another species from somewhere else in the universe. Both of those hypotheses can be shown to have problems of their own, and neither gives rise to a scientifically useful theory, but the fact remains that science cannot (yet) declare them false. The best they can do is try to guesstimate possibilities.

So, if you really wish to argue about the "origin of life" (rather than the Origin of Species), then another thread would be the place for it. You would, of course, be perfectly welcome and within your rights to propose a Genisis-like creation, though you will struggle to prove it -- just as others would be within their rights to propose other, more natural, hypotheses. They, like you, will also struggle to prove it.

But in this thread, the supposition is that life already exists, and has (at least) the characteristics of being able to self-replicate, with variations, and respond to the conditions in which it finds itself. That is ALL THAT YOU NEED for evolution.

(PS: many of us are really, really tired of members who refuse to accept that evolution is NOT a theory about how life originated, and instead insist on getting it in there, probably in hopes of casting doubt on what the theory is actually about. This is dishonest.)

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The thread is about evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution. It is not a thread about abiogenesis, which is another thing altogether. Darwin himself made this clear in Origin of Species.

The question of how life began on earth has not yet been definitively answered. There are good hypotheses, but no general theory yet. Therefore, if you like, you can consider possibilities like creation, or implantation by another species from somewhere else in the universe. Both of those hypotheses can be shown to have problems of their own, and neither gives rise to a scientifically useful theory, but the fact remains that science cannot (yet) declare them false. The best they can do is try to guesstimate possibilities.

So, if you really wish to argue about the "origin of life" (rather than the Origin of Species), then another thread would be the place for it. You would, of course, be people welcome and within your rights to propose a Genisis-like creation, though you will struggle to prove it -- just as others would be within their rights to propose other, more natural, hypotheses. They, like you, will also struggle to prove it.

But in this thread, the supposition is that life already exists, and has (at least) the characteristics of being able to self-replicate, with variations, and respond to the conditions in which it finds itself. That is ALL THAT YOU NEED for evolution.

(PS: many of us are really, really tired of members who refuse to accept that evolution is NOT a theory about how life originated, and instead insist on getting it in there, probably in hopes of casting doubt on what the theory is actually about. This is dishonest.)

Aren't you saying that man evolved from a monkey? How is that not saying the origin of man's life was per evolution? It is linked to origin of life.

When you try to imply I am dishonest how is that not an insult?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you claim man evolved from a monkey. That makes it about the origin of man's life.

I haven't made that claim. You are the one that keeps bringing it up. But I do agree with the evidence that man also evolved.

I thought you weren't interested in debating with me. It is fine if you are. But I do hope you will answer some of my questions.

 

[exchemist]

Telling me it is my responsibility to prove an egg didn't evolve, is like telling others it's their responsibility to show that God doesn't exist.

The theory has to be supported by those that believe in it. You agree that it takes something living to lay the egg. You agree that the egg will produce something very similar to what lays the egg. It's your job to show that it did evolve, not mine to prove it didn't.

How did you get the life to be there to evolve to begin with? That's the root of the problem. If you are claiming it was through evolution then how you got that initial egg is a valid question.

This, again, is about abiogenesis, not evolution. That is a separate subject.

The theory of evolution is that, once there was life that handed on the traits of organisms via heredity, changes took place driven by differences in reproductive success, which led to new species arising. The theory does not address the thorny question of how the first organisms arose that were capable of passing on traits through heredity. That is the job of abiogenesis research. To date, science does not have a theory as to how that happened. It is a subject of research.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you claim man evolved from a monkey. That makes it about the origin of man's life.

I can tell you what is said in science about man's evolution and this is based on the evidence of a number of lines and not just the fossil record.

 

[exchemist]

The thread is about evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution. It is not a thread about abiogenesis, which is another thing altogether. Darwin himself made this clear in Origin of Species.

The question of how life began on earth has not yet been definitively answered. There are good hypotheses, but no general theory yet. Therefore, if you like, you can consider possibilities like creation, or implantation by another species from somewhere else in the universe. Both of those hypotheses can be shown to have problems of their own, and neither gives rise to a scientifically useful theory, but the fact remains that science cannot (yet) declare them false. The best they can do is try to guesstimate possibilities.

So, if you really wish to argue about the "origin of life" (rather than the Origin of Species), then another thread would be the place for it. You would, of course, be people welcome and within your rights to propose a Genisis-like creation, though you will struggle to prove it -- just as others would be within their rights to propose other, more natural, hypotheses. They, like you, will also struggle to prove it.

But in this thread, the supposition is that life already exists, and has (at least) the characteristics of being able to self-replicate, with variations, and respond to the conditions in which it finds itself. That is ALL THAT YOU NEED for evolution.

(PS: many of us are really, really tired of members who refuse to accept that evolution is NOT a theory about how life originated, and instead insist on getting it in there, probably in hopes of casting doubt on what the theory is actually about. This is dishonest.)

SNAP.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

On the surface evolution might appear to be a valid explanation if you already had something existing to evolve. For instance if you had a bird of some kind, maybe you could possibly say that it gradually became the modern day chicken. But you are skipping the part about getting a bird to begin with.

No I'm not. I just didn't have time or space to go through the entirety of all evolutionary development on planet Earth over a period of about 600 million years.

Take a look at this -- and just remember to mentally "add in" all those very slight changes I mentioned from one generation to the next. For example, over 15 million years, it is likely that most of the species on this "chart" experienced at minimum 5 million generations. Even you must admit that even tiny, tiny modifications -- if there are 5,000,000 of them must -- could easily add up to quite significant changes.

 

[ChristineM]

When you claim man evolved from a monkey. That makes it about the origin of man's life.

Man evolved from an ape like creature. Apes evolved from monkeys. I know of no one who shows their ignorance and insults the human race by ignoring facts other than anti evolutionists who make the specious claim "man evolved from monkey"

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Man evolved from an ape like creature. Apes evolved from monkeys. I know of no one who shows their ignorance and insults the human race by ignoring facts other than anti evolutionists who make the specious claim "man evolved from monkey"

It seems as if it's ok for you evolutionists to insult us. But if we say anything like that you cry foul.