Why evolution did not comes like this ?

[LuisDantas]

So evolution is pass from creature to another new creature ?

Yes.

so there is no evidence about the evolution of the creature of it self ?

What do you mean here?

so the creature suddenelly appears with intact function and complete body just like that !!!

I just don't know how to answer this.

On the one hand, you may mean that creatures are born whole, which they both are and are not.

On the other, I suspect I am just not understanding what you mean, and that you are attached to an unrealistic conception of what the theory of evolution is.

 

[dust1n]

On closer inspection all these socalled useless leftovers serve a function.

But you are right that evolution theory predicts lots of useless and inefficient organisms, due to the randomness of mutations. Evolution theory predicts organisms to be sort of monsters with lots of useless bulges and weird things which natural selection slowly weeds out. And mathematics show that the total chaos of random mutation wins against selection.

What function does a human tail serve? How about excess nipples?

 

[LuisDantas]

you said "We know enough" !!!!
I disagree , IF there is enough in science , so there is no developpement .

But it is not a matter of whether people agree.

The evidence exists.

It is because it existed even back in the 19th century that we have the Theory of Evolution to begin with, and it is because we have found lots more evidence since that it has developed and taken a more definite form.

You may well be unaware of the evidence or suspicious of much of it (and it is perfectly reasonable if you are; even most of us supporters of the Theory are actually very ill-informed about what it says exactly), but the evidence does exist and is rather solid. Unfortunately, most of it can only be fairly understood by people with a fairly ambitious education.

it's just thoeries who tell about lifeforms , there is no waranty evidence .

Sorry, but on this you are very much wrong.

because of fans of evolution , always take such exemple , that body of creature changed in timeline .

If I understand what you mean here, you seem to be unaware of genetics.

The characteristics of a lifeform are not inherited from those of its direct ancestors exactly. They are developed from its genetic material.

I'm honestly not sure what you understand biological evolution as being, but it seems to be lacking a lot of information about both the theory itself and the evidence that supports and created it.

It is difficult to have a meaningful discussion about a conception of evolution that is quite unrelated to reality, and there is no point in attempting to defend its reality when we know outright that it does not correspond to facts.

why you reject the evolution of creation by it self ,

I would have to understand better what you are asking before I could answer meaningfully.

it's not that what already happaned ?
let's compare evolution of plane to human ,

Sorry, Godobeyer, but I just don't know what to make of this.

 

[dust1n]

So evolution is pass from creature to another new creature ?

so there is no evidence about the evolution of the creature of it self ?

Kinda. Mutations and changes to DNA and genetic variance through sexual reproduction happen when information is passed from one (or two creatures) to the offspring.

Evolution is an assessment of what changes have happened to the DNA over an entire population of a species. So I'm looking at goats in the year 2000, and I want to know how goats have evolved in the year 20000. The goats of the year 20000 may be slightly different, or vastly different. Those goats might have split into 2 groups and no longer reproducing together, so you have a group of goats that are slightly different, and the other group had some much change in DNA, that it would be difficult to call that thing a goat anymore.

 

[dust1n]

Actually you have to provide mathematics that it does work out. Any theory needs to be mathematically solved.

So I suppose you've already mathematically solved Creationism, right?

 

[dust1n]

I imagine it .and does not work

could you make human or a complete lifeform by single cell ?

Um yes. How do you think you were made? Your dad's sperm cell fertilized your mom's egg cell. In 9 months, you go from one cell to billions that make up a baby.

 

[dust1n]

Again, that would make DNA evidence inadmissable in courts of law, because then a suspect can just say well somebody else has largely the same DNA as me. You don't understand anything, and there is just something with people who don't accept freedom is real that makes talking reasonably with them impossible.

This has happened before with parent / childrens, siblings, and twins.

DNA Test That Distinguishes Identical Twins May Be Used in Court for First Time | WIRED

 

[Godobeyer]

Um yes. How do you think you were made? Your dad's sperm cell fertilized your mom's egg cell. In 9 months, you go from one cell to billions that make up a baby.

That's knowing

ok explain to me how you understand that we came from one cell ?

step by step .

 

[McBell]

That's knowing

ok explain to me how you understand that we came from one cell ?

step by step .

 

[dust1n]

That's knowing

ok explain to me how you understand that we came from one cell ?

step by step .

Well, the process of saying that you as an individual started as one cell and become many, isn't evolution.

The process of there being a single cell over 4 billion years ago, and then humans exist much much later, would be. I'd go to post #100, where I have already provided the resources to illustrate evolution from a single cell to humans.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Please don't misprepresent what I said: I didn't say you said it didn't work, I said you don't know how it works. Which is obvious, given the last half of the sentence.

Nearly all individual mutations on one DNA string simply won't show up at all; some specific ones which cause a break (if you don't know what I mean, go and read how it works) would a bit.. but unless the mutation happened to spread across all the cells from which the DNA sample was collected, that would still me little more than noise in the signal.

And all those calculations have been done, hence DNA "matches" return from the lab with a probability attached

Authoritarian huffing and puffing, which evolutionists are so good at. You still have to calculate the probability of another human being having the same sequence. That is the point, that it is calculated, where the other evolutionist said calculations on mutations are impossible.

 

[philbo]

Authoritarian huffing and puffing, which evolutionists are so good at. You still have to calculate the probability of another human being having the same sequence. That is the point, that it is calculated, where the other evolutionist said calculations on mutations are impossible.

Having the same sequence of DNA is not necessary for DNA fingerprinting to match - it isn't doing a sequencing check. The probability of two unrelated human DNA fingerprints matching is only in the tens or hundreds of millions to one against (I say "only" - when you consider the number of possible genomes, those are very short odds indeed). The odds are good enough for the legal people to ascertain guilt, whether you factor in mutations or not.

It may feel like authoritarian to you, but it isn't: it's a simple straightforward request that you learn something about the subjects about which you're pontificating. You're talking from a position of almost perfect ignorance, so there's no chance of you understanding what the arguments against are, or why you're almost fractally wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You insisted that it cannot be calculated......now suddenly calculations can be made.

Authoritarian huffing and puffing, which evolutionists are so good at. You still have to calculate the probability of another human being having the same sequence. That is the point, that it is calculated, where the other evolutionist said calculations on mutations are impossible.

*triple facepalm*

What I said is that you cannot possibly calculate all of the variables in order to make a calculation predicting whether evolution is more likely to be true than to not be true, and there currently exists no way to predict when and where mutations occur. That is not even remotely the same as saying "we can compare DNA in order to match it to a specific individual, and the likelihood of two individuals possessing the exact same sequence is astronomically improbable.

Allow me to illustrate: If you and I both have 100 6-sided die, and rolled them one after another, it would be astronomically impossible to successfully predict the exact sequence of numbers we would roll. However, once we have have FINISHED rolling our 100 die, we can still compare and contrast our sequence of rolls to see if they match up in any place. You don't need to do any form of calculation to deduce that the odds of both sequences being exactly alike are extremely, extremely low.

Do you understand?

 

[Godobeyer]

Well, the process of saying that you as an individual started as one cell and become many, isn't evolution.

The process of there being a single cell over 4 billion years ago, and then humans exist much much later, would be. I'd go to post #100, where I have already provided the resources to illustrate evolution from a single cell to humans.

What is your waranty that was single cell , and it's succeded to stay alive for period of time ,then and it's could reproduce (revive) for it self , how it's could programed it self to stay alive ?

 

[Godobeyer]

Timeline of human evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so all the creatures and also Human origin is Bacteria ?

could the human science made a new cell capable to live and made NEW life from Bacteria ?

 

[dust1n]

What is your waranty that was single cell , and it's succeded to stay alive for period of time ,then and it's could reproduce (revive) for it self , how it's could programed it self to stay alive ?

There are many theories as to how the life started from non-life and then perpetuated. There is not much definitive proof for any of these theories, yet.

A warranty do I have that singled cell organisms predate all other things?

Well, in Australia there are cyanobacteria fossils that date back 3.5 billion years. You won't find a fossil around this time of more than a cell. The earliest known fossil of an organism with more than one cell is 2.1 billion years old.

As far as possible ways could start programmed to stay alive, well the best I can give you sources to people who study this sort of things exclusively.

"LA JOLLA, CA, January 8, 2009—One of the most enduring questions is how life could have begun on Earth. Molecules that can make copies of themselves are thought to be crucial to understanding this process as they provide the basis for heritability, a critical characteristic of living systems. Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely."

News Release

Consider that:

"In March 2015, NASA scientists reported that, for the first time, complex DNA and RNA organic compounds of life, including uracil, cytosine and thymine, have been formed in the laboratory under conditions found only in outer space, using starting chemicals, like pyrimidine, found in meteorites. Pyrimidine, like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), the most carbon-rich chemical found in the Universe, may have been formed in giant red stars or in interstellar dust and gas clouds, according to the scientists.[60]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rna_world

 

[Bunyip]

I don't think in primary school , that we will found how the creatures creat it self or how a creature evolute it's self , the biology explain how it's works/run and linked to each other .

Yes that's correct, if you had a primary school level knowledge of biology - you would at least know that evolution happens to species, not individuals.

 

[outhouse]

so all the creatures and also Human origin is Bacteria ?

Yes.

Exactly the opposite of what creation mythology states.

could the human science made a new cell capable to live and made NEW life from Bacteria ?

Can your imagination create a cell ????

Can your IMAGINATION make new life from bacteria?

 

[Nietzsche]

Eyes are excellent evidence for evolution.
Almost all animals have them. A notable exception are the species of fish who have been living in caves for a long time. But horseshoe crabs, octopus, bees, and vertebrates all do.
The eyes of these creatures are extremely different. Their ancestors diverged very long ago and they evolved their sight organs separately over millions of years. Those eyes work in their evolutionary niche, but no "Designer" came up with the eye and put it in animals.
Obviously.
Tom

​

I'm gonna dumb this down for others;

Basically, of all animals that have eyes, none of them are copies of another in design or even in function. A Designer would standardize it, or at least standardize it for all the larger groups. All mammals get this kind of eye, reptiles this other kind, so on and so forth. But that isn't the case at all.

There is even a type of deep-sea fish that has two sets of eyes. One set is how you see eyes on all fish, the other is situated on the back. However, the eyes on the back? Their design is completely different. It isn't a copy of the same set of eyes it already has, they are completely new despite seeing the exact same wavelengths of light as the other set. That would be like us growing a set of eyes on the back of our head that sees exactly the same kind of light your regular eyes do, but their formation is entirely different. A Designer wouldn't do that. That's the very antithesis of rational design.

 

[shawn001]

so all the creatures and also Human origin is Bacteria ?

could the human science made a new cell capable to live and made NEW life from Bacteria ?

Not just bacteria but viruses as well.


20 Things You Didn't Know About... Viruses
The one with its own satellite, the ones that made you, and the Mama of them all


14 In fact, scratch the whole concept of “us versus them.” Half of all human DNA originally came from viruses, which infected and embedded themselves in our ancestors’ egg and sperm cells.

20 Things You Didn't Know About... Viruses | DiscoverMagazine.com


Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones .

Humans Carry More Bacterial Cells than Human Ones - Scientific American


Bacteria evolved first for sure, but it has greatly shaped our evolution as well and we have evolved with Bacteria in our digestive system as well to digest food.