What convinced you that Evolution is the truth?

[YoursTrue]

The Moderation Team is the final authority on this forum as to what is and what is not preaching.
If you think someone is preaching, regardless of the sermons subject matter, report it.

Here is Rule 8:

8. Preaching/Proselytizing​

Creating (or linking to) content intended to convert/recruit others to your religion, spirituality, sect/denomination, or lack thereof is not permitted. Similarly, attempting to convert others away from their religion, spiritual convictions, or sect/denomination will also be considered a form of preaching. Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.​

I understand that. It doesn't mean that evolutionists don't preach their side, but that's allowed, and them's the rules, and it doesn't mean that rules are right. I do my best to adhere to them, however.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As usual, you just put me down without explanation. And so do some others.
But here is something interesting I found and I encourage you and others to read it.
"Plants are composed of fewer cell types than are animals, but each different kind of plant cell is specialized to perform specific tasks required by the organism as a whole (Figure 1.12)." That's just a sample of the article. Do I think these things came about by evolution without an intelligent force? You may have guessed right. The answer is no, I do not think these fabulous complex things came about by natural physical forces without an intelligence beyond the human understanding. But the scientific information in the article is very, very interesting. The Origin and Evolution of Cells - The Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.

I was overly polite with you earlier on and you abused that. I know what the articles say and you use the same poor excuses as you used hear. You choose to believe myths not supported, and usually contradicted by the evidence.

Can you give one good reason for your beliefs?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I understand that. It doesn't mean that evolutionists don't preach their side, but that's allowed, and them's the rules, and it doesn't mean that rules are right. I do my best to adhere to them, however.

Nobody needs to preach science, and unlike religion, nobody profits from you believing it. Preaching is indoctrination, which is an attempt to download an idea into a mind through repetition and exhortation. Preaching is the word used when a religious message is being indoctrinated. When it's a commercial message, we call it advertising. When it's a political message, we call it propaganda. But it's all the same thing - indoctrination. Evolution science doesn't need to be preached/indoctrinated. It is taught. One becomes educated in it studying evidenced argument.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was overly polite with you earlier on and you abused that. I know what the articles say and you use the same poor excuses as you used hear. You choose to believe myths not supported, and usually contradicted by the evidence.

Can you give one good reason for your beliefs?

Overly polite? Nevertheless, why not just say what you have to say without insulting me, or putting me down? Just say what you want to say about your beliefs and kindly leave my education, or lack of it out of it as you see it. That might help towards a polite conversation. That is a suggestion, of course, perhaps applied to a more considerate conversation. Thanks.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Overly polite? Nevertheless, why not just say what you have to say without insulting me, or putting me down? Just say what you want to say about your beliefs and kindly leave my education, or lack of it out of it as you see it. That might help towards a polite conversation. That is a suggestion, of course, perhaps applied to a more considerate conversation. Thanks.

Was that even an insult? It was factual. And how often have you broken the Ninth Commandment when it comes to scientists? You kept making claims that you would not and could not support. You also seemed to do that about other posters here.

Do you know what would greatly reduce those supposed attacks? If you simply learned the basics of science and applied those when you made your posts. The basics are not at all hard to understand. And yet you will not even try.

 

[YoursTrue]

Again, from the scientific article: "Plants are composed of fewer cell types than are animals, but each different kind of plant cell is specialized to perform specific tasks required by the organism as a whole " I find that very interesting.
Another article, "So how did plants split from animals?The eukaryotes undergo major splits: the ancestors of modern plants, fungi and animals split into separate lineages, and evolve separately. We do not know in what order the three groups broke with each other."

Timeline of the evolution of life on Earth - New Scientist​

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, from the scientific article: "Plants are composed of fewer cell types than are animals, but each different kind of plant cell is specialized to perform specific tasks required by the organism as a whole " I find that very interesting.
Another article, "So how did plants split from animals?The eukaryotes undergo major splits: the ancestors of modern plants, fungi and animals split into separate lineages, and evolve separately. We do not know in what order the three groups broke with each other."

Timeline of the evolution of life on Earth - New Scientist​

Okay, this is just another objection that can be refuted by a simple "So what?" We know that those events happened. Why do we have to know in which order. By the way, scientists are working at that. Your standards are not consistent because you do not apply that to your own beliefs. You have no idea at all as to how God supposedly did anything aside from it being "God magic". In other word this is a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

At least this article explained to you how prokaryotes had to come before Eukaryotes.

No one has ever said that all of the problems of evolution have been answered. What they will say is that enough of them have been answered that there is no doubt that we are the product of evolution.

Now you may want to stick your God in the process somewhere. There is no evidence against that, but then there is no evidence for that either.

 

[Valjean]

Why do I believe the most extensively and consiliently evidenced theory in all of science; a theory that's been observed in action at multiple levels, and whose mechanisms have been used productively for thousands of years? The theory that makes sense of all of biology?A theory whose mechanisms can be demonstrated in any kitchen or high school, anywhere?
Is this a serious question?

The ToE is more extensively evidenced than the germ theory of disease, the heliocentric theory of the solar system, the theory of a spherical Earth, the atomic theory, or the theories of relativity. Why do I not see controversies about these theories?

I'd assumed everyone had been taught taught the basics, history, and historical supports of the ToE in high school or before. Apparently not.

The only alternative mechanism I've seen is magic. Why would anyone believe in magic? Magic is completely unevidenced, non-explanitory, unobserved and untestable. Evolution is observed in action everywhere.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know there are images of what prokaryotes looked like. It is too complicated, in my opinion.

Your opinion isn't worth anything when it comes to advanced academic field you have zero qualifications in.
Just like my opinion or anyone else's opinion. In fact even the opinions of scientists are irrelevant in science.

What matters are facts and what can be sufficiently supported by evidence and verifiable testing.

to have come about complete and I see no other explanation -- so far it seems from scientific explanation they emerged in complete form. If you know of any other scientific endeavor to explain, I'll be happy to look at it.

Read up on abiogenesis please.

Literally not a single hypothesis (and there are several) is saying that procaryotes emerged "in complete form".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I do not believe that innate need to evolve is something imbued in an organism by physical nature. Where did it come from?

Evolving life is inevitable due to how it works: imperfect replication (ie: mutation) and natural selection.
There is no "need" or "drive" or whatever. There is only the inevitable consequence of change over generations while in competition with peers over limited resources.

Life evolving is as inevitable as an object with mass falling down to earth instead of randomly shooting up into space.

Yes, especially when it seems you claim it is true. Of course a link to scientific explanation is necessary.

You require a "scientific explanation" for the idea that those that get outcompeted by peers do not survive?

How many succesful growing profitable companies do you know that are outcompeted by their competition?
How many do you know that went bankrupt instead?

If life is the prime ingredient, everything dies anyway

Missing the point on purpose?

. However, the Bible explains that humans can live forever someday.

And Lord of The Rings explains that there is this one ring to rule them all.
And Game of Thrones explains that winter is coming.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I do not believe that innate need to evolve is something imbued in an organism by physical nature. Where did it come from?

Do you believe that the environment is constantly changing?

Do you believe that a single event (a volcano, a hurricane, a flood, a meteor) can turn a once-ideal place to live into a potential deathtrap?

Do you believe that some creatures will be able to get by in the changed environment?

Do you believe that most won't?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my opinion, one of the best books on the subject of the truth of evolution is by Jerry Coyne in 2009: "Why Evolution is True." The beauty of it is the number of connected examples it contains, and the detailed explanations of what those examples tell us. It's a book written for those of us not destined to become great scientists, in language easy to understand. Paying attention to the scientific evidence and with a wonderfully accessible style, Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago, presents an overwhelming case for evolution. Ranging from biogeography to geology, from anatomy to genetics, and from molecular biology to physiology, he demonstrates that evolutionary theory makes predictions that are consistently borne out by the data – basic requirements for a scientific theory to be valid.

Among the wonders that science has uncovered about the universe, no subject has sparked more fascination and fury than evolution. Yet in all the ongoing debates about creationism and its descendant, “intelligent design,” one element of the controversy is rarely mentioned: the evidence, the empirical truth of evolution by natural selection. And that evidence is vast, varied, and magnificent, drawn from a huge spectrum of scientific inquiry ranging from genetics, anatomy, and molecular biology to paleontology and geology.​

​

Why Evolution Is True is a succinct and accessible summary of the facts supporting Darwinian evolution. Scientists today are finding species splitting in two, observing natural selection changing animals and plants before our eyes, and discovering more and more fossils capturing change in the past-dinosaurs that have sprouted feathers, fish that have grown limbs. Jerry Coyne eloquently shows that evolution does not destroy the beauty of life but enhances it.​

​

Reading this book will explain why so many scientists have dedicated their careers to resolving this debate, and why education administrators fervently fight legislation demanding that science curricula include equal time for anti-Darwinian theories. By demonstrating the “indelible stamp” of the processes first proposed by Darwin, Jerry Coyne clearly confirms that evolution is more than just a theory: it is a fact-a fact that cannot be doubted by anyone with an open mind.​

 

[McBell]

In my opinion, one of the best books on the subject of the truth of evolution is by Jerry Coyne in 2009: "Why Evolution is True." The beauty of it is the number of connected examples it contains, and the detailed explanations of what those examples tell us. It's a book written for those of us not destined to become great scientists, in language easy to understand. Paying attention to the scientific evidence and with a wonderfully accessible style, Coyne, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Chicago, presents an overwhelming case for evolution. Ranging from biogeography to geology, from anatomy to genetics, and from molecular biology to physiology, he demonstrates that evolutionary theory makes predictions that are consistently borne out by the data – basic requirements for a scientific theory to be valid.

Among the wonders that science has uncovered about the universe, no subject has sparked more fascination and fury than evolution. Yet in all the ongoing debates about creationism and its descendant, “intelligent design,” one element of the controversy is rarely mentioned: the evidence, the empirical truth of evolution by natural selection. And that evidence is vast, varied, and magnificent, drawn from a huge spectrum of scientific inquiry ranging from genetics, anatomy, and molecular biology to paleontology and geology.​

​

Why Evolution Is True is a succinct and accessible summary of the facts supporting Darwinian evolution. Scientists today are finding species splitting in two, observing natural selection changing animals and plants before our eyes, and discovering more and more fossils capturing change in the past-dinosaurs that have sprouted feathers, fish that have grown limbs. Jerry Coyne eloquently shows that evolution does not destroy the beauty of life but enhances it.​

​

Reading this book will explain why so many scientists have dedicated their careers to resolving this debate, and why education administrators fervently fight legislation demanding that science curricula include equal time for anti-Darwinian theories. By demonstrating the “indelible stamp” of the processes first proposed by Darwin, Jerry Coyne clearly confirms that evolution is more than just a theory: it is a fact-a fact that cannot be doubted by anyone with an open mind.​

The problem, AISI, is that it does not matter how good a source is for teaching evolution.
When someone is not the least bit interested in learning it, no source will help them learn.

Don't get me wrong.
I am in no way saying to not present sources.
There are always those who lurk .
And some of them may very well appreciate the information.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do you believe that the environment is constantly changing?

What I DO know is that carbon monoxide and other gases can change (disturb) the atmosphere. In other words, I believe that.

Do you believe that a single event (a volcano, a hurricane, a flood, a meteor) can turn a once-ideal place to live into a potential deathtrap?

Yes...

Do you believe that some creatures will be able to get by in the changed environment?

I GUESS so. I hear cockroaches will survive a nuclear war...

Do you believe that most won't?

I'll go back to your third question. I have read that dogs that survived the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl seem to be immune to cancer. (Do you think that means I think these dogs will evolve to something other than dogs? -- Gotta tell you -- I doubt it, but -- seeing can be believing.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll go back to your third question. I have read that dogs that survived the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl seem to be immune to cancer. (Do you think that means I think these dogs will evolve to something other than dogs? -- Gotta tell you -- I doubt it, but -- seeing can be believing.)

It seems that you still do not understand evolution. There is no "evolving into something else". Like it or not you are still and ape.

I do not know about your cancer claim, though it could be true. Dogs that are more prone to cancer may have gotten cancer due to radiation and died off. That is not an ideal cancer "cure". But the offspring of dogs will always be dogs, just as the offspring of apes will always be apes.

 

[YoursTrue]

Okay, this is just another objection that can be refuted by a simple "So what?" We know that those events happened. Why do we have to know in which order. By the way, scientists are working at that. Your standards are not consistent because you do not apply that to your own beliefs. You have no idea at all as to how God supposedly did anything aside from it being "God magic". In other word this is a case of the pot calling the silverware black.

At least this article explained to you how prokaryotes had to come before Eukaryotes.

No one has ever said that all of the problems of evolution have been answered. What they will say is that enough of them have been answered that there is no doubt that we are the product of evolution.

Now you may want to stick your God in the process somewhere. There is no evidence against that, but then there is no evidence for that either.

Yes, I see the 'so what' responses. But it means not much sometimes. Meantime, no matter that I have seen, prokaryotes are not so simple. At least that's what I see. And to believe that these things evolved, duplicated, etc. and then led after billions of years to become fish eventually leading to humans is more than I can accept BECAUSE other than conjecture about fish somehow developing legs and air-breathing lungs I see nothing that becomes truth. Except, of course, that God created the various kinds, however one interprets that. Beyond that I don't go for one basic reason: there is no substantial proof. By proof I mean absolute evidence that things like fish (which are still fish, btw) developed legs and lungs that breath air among other things.
I do recognize that water rises upward in the form of steam, whatever, and when the cloud gets too heavy the rain comes down. Maybe I don't have that right, and needs a little tweaking. But it's still a fabulous idea, I think.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I see the 'so what' responses. But it means not much sometimes. Meantime, no matter that I have seen, prokaryotes are not so simple. At least that's what I see. And to believe that these things evolved, duplicated, etc. and then led after billions of years to become fish eventually leading to humans is more than I can accept BECAUSE other than conjecture about fish somehow developing legs and air-breathing lungs I see nothing that becomes truth. Except, of course, that God created the various kinds, however one interprets that. Beyond that I don't go for one basic reason: there is no substantial proof. By proof I mean absolute evidence that things like fish (which are still fish, btw) developed legs and lungs that breath air among other things.
I do recognize that water rises upward in the form of steam, whatever, and when the cloud gets too heavy the rain comes down. Maybe I don't have that right, and needs a little tweaking. But it's still a fabulous idea, I think.

Oh boy. Yes, I have stated that modern prokaryotes are very complex. You are making the mistake of assuming that they were always very complex.

The very first prokaryotes would have been very very simple. So simple that they would almost instantly be "food" for any life that exists today.

 

[YoursTrue]

It seems that you still do not understand evolution. There is no "evolving into something else". Like it or not you are still and ape.

I do not know about your cancer claim, though it could be true. Dogs that are more prone to cancer may have gotten cancer due to radiation and died off. That is not an ideal cancer "cure". But the offspring of dogs will always be dogs, just as the offspring of apes will always be apes.

LOL, I don't believe that. You may and obviously do believe that you are an ape. I no longer do. I believe you and I are BEYOND apes ... meaning we are not apes. Or evolved fish.
I checked again, and see I was wrong. They were not dogs. They are wolves. Sorry.
"Wolves in Chernobyl’s radiation zone appear to have developed a resistance to cancer after being exposed to high levels of radiation in the wake of the nuclear disaster 35 years ago, according to a new study."

Chernobyl’s mutant wolves developing resistance to cancer, study says

Wolves in Chernobyl’s radiation zone appear to have developed a resistance to cancer after being exposed to high levels of radiation in the wake of the nuclear disaster 35 years ago, according to a new study.

www.fox29.com

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh boy. Yes, I have stated that modern prokaryotes are very complex. You are making the mistake of assuming that they were always very complex.

The very first prokaryotes would have been very very simple. So simple that they would almost instantly be "food" for any life that exists today.

No, I'm not making the mistake. Somehow all those sides came up at the same time with the ability to duplicate...come on...what you are saying is that the "original" or "ancient" prokaryotes are definitely not like present-day prokaryotes. But do you know that for a fact?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone ok time for a break.