Is There Evidence for Evolution? Show it to us.

a reply to: artistpoet

Evolution has nothing to do with origins. That's an entirely different issue. Most of the numbskulls who deny evolution never grasp that point.

a reply to: artistpoet

Well at least your argument has "evolved" from "man is a man and ape is an ape."

By "triggers the DNA" are you referring to genetic mutation that can delete, insert or modify base pairs? The source can be solar radiation, error in copying, changes caused via combining genes during conception, etc.

a reply to: artistpoet

Nothing about dna goes against basic chemistry and until proven otherwise, there is no reason to believe the creation of dna is anything more than a chemical reaction.

a reply to: artistpoet

You just answered yourself... at least partly...

"But what is the source/cause that triggers the DNA ? " = the environment (as well as other influences, such as intracellular).

DNA is literally a "plastic" medium, as we are only recently discovering, DNA can restructure itself slightly (in some cases up to 20% over the life of a human) in a living organism based on environmental pressures throughout the organism’s life.

This means that adaption actually changes your DNA, and those changes will be more likely to express themselves in your offspring.

It may be that evolution is more fluid and fine-grained than genetic determinism has traditionally suggested.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero


I'm not sure what you think evolution is or how you seem to want to apply it to say it is not a theory or that there is zero evidence.

Never said that.

The assumption is that adaptations can accumulate to the point where you eventually result in an "evolved" species. Adaptations are observable and happen all the time; anti-biotic resistant bacteria, Galapagos finches, etc. But, we are only left to assume that these adaptations could accumulate to give rise to new species. It seems logically possible, but there is no direct observable evidence that this occurs. We are only left with observing adaptations.

Could an accumulation of adaptations/mutations be solely responsible for the diverse plethora of lifeforms we see today? Sure it could. It is also possible that this is not the case. I, personally, find it hard to believe that conscious entities (us, among other animals) were generated by incident. So my scientific search for the answers of our beginnings continues.

Wrong again Coop. I think we went through this before, didn't we? You really should start paying attention. Also, a "designer" plays no part in evolution because evolution has nothing to do with origins. How many times do I have to say it??

But just because we can't see all speciation events from start to finish doesn't mean we can't see species splitting. If the theory of evolution is true, we would expect to find species in various stages of separation all over the globe. There would be ones that have just begun to split, showing reproductive isolation, and those that might still look like one species but haven't interbred for thousands of years. Indeed, that is exactly what we find.

Orcas (Orcinus orca), better known as killer whales, all look fairly similar. They're big dolphins with black and white patches that hunt in packs and perform neat tricks at Sea World. But for several decades now, marine mammalogists have thought that there was more to the story. Behavioral studies have revealed that different groups of orcas have different behavioral traits. They feed on different animals, act differently, and even talk differently. But without a way to follow the whales underwater to see who they mate with, the scientists couldn't be sure if the different whale cultures were simply quirks passed on from generation to generation or a hint at much more.

The point is that all kinds of creatures, from the smallest insects to the largest mammals, are undergoing speciation right now. We have watched species split, and we continue to see them diverge. Speciation is occurring all around us. Evolution didn't just happen in the past; it's happening right now, and will continue on long after we stop looking for it.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: Phantom423

Thanks for pointing that out
As I was under the impression that origins were related to evolution ...

a reply to: Barcs

By "triggers the DNA" are you referring to genetic mutation that can delete, insert or modify base pairs? The source can be solar radiation, error in copying, changes caused via combining genes during conception, etc.

As has been pointed out to me Origins is not Evolution
It is the origins I am interested in learning more about
The origin of source of life

So I will not stray off topic
But thank you for your time and effort

a reply to: Cypress

Nothing about dna goes against basic chemistry and until proven otherwise, there is no reason to believe the creation of dna is anything more than a chemical reaction.

Yes ... My question would be what is causing the chemical reaction

a reply to: puzzlesphere

Thanks for explanation ... it was easy to understand

I was gardening yesterday
Pruning back a plant that was wanting to flower and so go to seed
I realised a plant potentially contains the seeds for the continence of it's kind
By going to flower and then to seed

Yet my pruning back the flowering tops and also some foliage
It would cause the plant to send out fresh growth and eventually more flowers

I thought about this in relation to how a plant or animal adapts to suit it's environment

I guess what I am asking is this
The DNA is a structure for information but how is the actual information made and by what

I know it has been said it is due to chemical reactions in some cases but if so then what is causing the chemical reaction

I will leave it there as I realise I am going off topic and my deeper question is the age old question of how all came to be and what caused it

a reply to: lifecitizen
I have read this book; but there are other disciplines that reveal the same thing (one doesn't rely on just one recourse/resource).

originally posted by: artistpoet
a reply to: puzzlesphere

Thanks for explanation ... it was easy to understand

I was gardening yesterday
Pruning back a plant that was wanting to flower and so go to seed
I realised a plant potentially contains the seeds for the continence of it's kind
By going to flower and then to seed.
I thought about this in relation to how a plant or animal adapts to suit it's environment

I guess what I am asking is this
The DNA is a structure for information but how is the actual information made and by what?

I will tell you this; don't plant potatoes or onions in 'halved 50 gallon" containers above the ground (failure). Root vegetables have to have the earth tell them what to do, when and how to grow. I don't know why. Perhaps this is why any closed "Biospheric" experiment is doomed to fail (Arizona-Biosphere I and II as examples). Raised bed tomatoes a different story in a steel building (18 inches of soil in the raised beds); played music and feed them biodegraded fish oil. We had 13 foot plants bending at the ceiling with a ridiculous amount of produce. You would ask what happened to this experiment?

originally posted by: vethumanbeing

I will tell you this; don't plant potatoes or onions in 'halved 50 gallon" containers above the ground (failure). Root vegetables have to have the earth tell them what to do, when and how to grow

What a bunch of complete and utter nonsense. I have successfully grown potatoes and onions in containers on a balcony in a four story building.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Wrong again Coop. I think we went through this before, didn't we? You really should start paying attention. Also, a "designer" plays no part in evolution because evolution has nothing to do with origins. How many times do I have to say it??

No need to be patronizing. Creationism explains the beginning of life, which is what I am defending, so I was not incorrect in saying my search for the beginnings has led me to creationism, which also explains the diversity of life. If this is responsible for the diversity of life, then evolution is a half-truth. Like I said, I think evolution is a precise description of embryological development; biogenesis, life from life.

I do not want to get into a semantic back and forth, which is usually what all creation-evolution debates turn into. I think the question can be simplified to this:

What came first, consciousness or matter? Evolution insists that over a large span of time, the interactions of matter, energy, etc, ultimately gave rise to conscious entities. Whereas creationism insists that a conscious entity (spirit) came first and created a world and then manifested Itself as a human to interact with its creation.

a reply to: cooperton

I've been trying to find the meaning of life since...the beginning, and i think I'm finally getting close to a plausible theory. I think, consciousness motivates evolution. Life doesn't evolve from random mutations but rather premeditated ones. I came to this conclusion after learning:

1. Dna has error correcting code
2. Error correcting code also discovered in string theory equations
3. Dna replicates based on Phi
4. Phi (Fibonacci) is ubiquitous
5. Cells work symbiotically as a macroscopic wave
6. Discovery of quantum vibrations in cellular cytoskeleton
7. Discovery of quantum photosynthesis
8. Anesthesia phenomena
9. Mandelbrot set
10. Cymatics
11. Hawking Radiation
12. Black holes
13. 1999 movie "the Matrix"

There's more including religion but these 13 things are enough for me to connect some dots. And what that picture is revealing is, we're part of an elaborate construct which is faaar from random. If I may be so bold to say, a computer program. But a computer so powerful it 'creates' life, not just mimic it. I believe we are spiritual beings having a human experience in a hologram. Yeah it's out there but let me make one argument. In QM, the mathematical results of gravity are the same as classical physics with one major caveat. QM results are in 2d while classical results are in 3d. This! is a major paradox among nuclear physicists. In fact, Hawking finally conceded to a bet that matter/energy does not get destroyed when sucked into a black hole. It remains, and the only way for both scientific worlds to finally agree where QM and classical physics clash, yet have the same mathematical results, is if WE our universe, is on a two dimensional plane, we are in a hologram.

Subatomic particles ARE a wave, but only behave like particles when we observe them. It's the program mimicking life in wave form but as soon as we start to watch, it snaps back as if to say, "damn, almost got busted"

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking with it

a reply to: FlySolo

Interesting remarks.

the ubiquity of phi, and pi for that matter, in nature seem to be clear indications of intelligence behind creation. Both are irrational numbers that have an infinite number of decimal places with no repeating-sequences . So now that we are on to the hint of our designed world, the next question is... what is the purpose?

Bear with me now. In the beginning was spirit, and spirit was pure consciousness. Think of your nightly dream realm; this was similar to the spirit's creation vessel. This consciousness was able to create things just by thought, or as the bible says "The Word". Through this Consciousness all things were manifested, and made itself a human avatar to interact with the world: Adam and Eve

If Adam and Eve never would have fallen from paradise, there would not be billions of humans or history because they would have remained in eternal bliss and never had children. But their fall was all part of the plan. If they had not fallen, the only conscious humans that ever would have been would be Adam and Eve (the original way Consciousness chose to manifest itself). This means no me, no you, etc. So, Intelligently enough, the Foreknowledge of the Designer knew a fall was going to occur, but it was all part of the plan: this allowed all of our own individual conscious (me, you, etc) to be born; this is why we are all Sons of God.

Herein comes the tricky part: the matrix. Because we are born within fallen humanity, we begin in our fallen state, and upon rising out of it we reunion with the pre-fall perfect state of Being; which is what Jesus' how-to manual (AKA the Gospels) teaches us to do.

Although I put these words into a way that (I hope) is easy to understand, all I have just said is also said in John 1:1-13

originally posted by: aorAki
originally posted by: vethumanbeing

vhb; I will tell you this; don't plant potatoes or onions in 'halved 50 gallon" containers above the ground (failure). Root vegetables have to have the earth tell them what to do, when and how to grow

aorAki: What a bunch of complete and utter nonsense. I have successfully grown potatoes and onions in containers on a balcony in a four story building.

Tell me more (how). Utter nonsense?; a dismissive statement you make without asking my method or trying to help me (or at all interested)? Not sure I would buy or consume your product if grown and infused with this attitude. No one owns the miracle of how or why plants succeed in whatever environment attempted to grow within. What am I doing wrong?

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah well, I can't really get on board with the Abraham God, the bible at face value, organized religions and I certainly don't believe in Adam and Eve. If my theory is correct, then there isn't any need for an "Adam and Eve" to start the ball rolling anyway. It's all in the DNA and it's consciousness layered over evolution.

But you might be on to something regarding the "word" of god so to speak. The conservation of mass where matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It just changes states. I once heard a QM example about particle acceleration. It's like crashing two cars head on, examining the wreckage, finding the two cars and a motorcycle. Things just "appear" that shouldn't be there when so much energy is created when atom smashing.

It could be, when god "spoke" god didn't actually use a voice but rather vibrations which resemble "sound" as they vibrate through strings. Just a guess. And those strings began to behave accordingly to create the subatomic particles we need for our elements to exist. So perhaps, in god's realm, anything is possible with thought alone and anyone can do it. In this realm we are limited to the conditions of a computer generated program and we must build everything we want manually.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Tell me more (how). Utter nonsense?; a dismissive statement you make without asking my method or trying to help me (or at all interested)?

Try this: http: potato planting in pots for all the help you need.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Wrong again Coop. I think we went through this before, didn't we? You really should start paying attention. Also, a "designer" plays no part in evolution because evolution has nothing to do with origins. How many times do I have to say it??

No need to be patronizing. Creationism explains the beginning of life, which is what I am defending, so I was not incorrect in saying my search for the beginnings has led me to creationism, which also explains the diversity of life. If this is responsible for the diversity of life, then evolution is a half-truth. Like I said, I think evolution is a precise description of embryological development; biogenesis, life from life.

I do not want to get into a semantic back and forth, which is usually what all creation-evolution debates turn into. I think the question can be simplified to this:

What came first, consciousness or matter? Evolution insists that over a large span of time, the interactions of matter, energy, etc, ultimately gave rise to conscious entities. Whereas creationism insists that a conscious entity (spirit) came first and created a world and then manifested Itself as a human to interact with its creation.

\

Evolution is not about origins or beginnings. It's about change and how it happens. You folks cannot this point through your heads.

And there's no semantics here. I posted a link to 156,000 + research papers which are laboratory experiments on various aspects of evolution. I challenge you to select one of these research papers and tell me why they're wrong.

I also posted links to a number of research papers which show evidence of speciation.

Let me ask you this - do you read any of these posts???? Do you ever open any of the research papers???? Do you ever ask how it is possible that 156,000 + research papers can be published in well regarded scientific journals and have not been challenged by Creationists???? The answer is flatly NO - you never ask. You don't care about evidence. You care about making bogus statements about your "science" which has no evidence, has no laboratory data, has no publications and has jack S&&&##$%^it to present as valid evidence for your position.

That's the difference.

It has to be very hard to stay uninformed in today's world. Claims such as - evolution is belief is just absurd, just like claim that atheism (absence of belief) is actually a form of belief.

Even there are thousands of scientific experiments (I posted many of them, one about fish in tank) and huge amount of support in evidence from fossils, people still find it easier to believe that everything was created by angry guy in sky, based on folklore tale books from 2 thousands years ago?!

And not to forget as many have noted on this thread - those who try so hard to stay uninformed - still don't understand that evolution has nothing to do with start of life.