Science indicates evolution of species.

a reply to: andy06shake

In some manner some are a product of the environment we create ourselves.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You try telling that to some poor starving child living in a mud hut 20 miles away from a clean water source.

The world we helped create and the status quo maintained by the few shapes most people's circumstances on this Earth as much a genetics does.

We are all products of society because we are part of such from the moment we are born until the very last breath that escapes our lips.

Form the smartest scientist or doctor to the lowest rapist of kiddie fiddler as fortunate or as unfortunate as the case may be the world in which we exist shapes us, nobody is born good or evil.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's not that complicated, you know. It seems like I lost you there.

a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Whats that now?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance

How about fish transforming into humans over millions of years? Same thing.

We do know that life started very simple as in chemicals to RNA to DNA so on and so forth.

...such as amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, and nitrogen bases leading to RNA to DNA to simple life forms to more complex life forms.

QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

...
What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9* [No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is possible.]

What does the Bible say? The Bible states that life on earth is the product of an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’s clear logic: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Another Bible passage says: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions. . . . There are moving things without number, living creatures, small as well as great.”​—Psalm 104:24, 25.

What does the evidence reveal? Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.10

If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.

THE CELL’S PROTECTIVE WALL
...
INSIDE THE FACTORY
...
Why do these facts matter? The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA (section 3 discusses this molecule) is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins.*

Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”14

ATP Synthase: The power plant of the cell (video)

What do you think? The theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention. However, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance. To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?

The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things. However, if the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.

After briefly considering the structure and function of a “simple” cell, what do you see​—evidence of many accidents or proof of brilliant design? If you are still unsure, take a closer look at the “master program” that controls the functions of all cells.
...

DNA transcription, translation and protein synthesis (video)
One of the footnotes from the article was:

Enzymes are one example of proteins made by cells. Each enzyme is folded in a special way to accelerate a particular chemical reaction. Hundreds of enzymes cooperate to regulate the cell’s activities.

Protein synthesis (DNA transcription, translation and folding) (video)

FACTS AND QUESTIONS

Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules that make up a cell​—DNA, RNA, proteins—​seem designed to work together.

Question: What seems more likely to you? Did unintelligent evolution construct the intricate machines depicted on page 10, or were those machines the product of an intelligent mind?

Fact: Some respected scientists say that even a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on earth.

Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?

Fact: Airplanes are created (engineered). Like all other machinery and technology:
Molecular Machinery of Life (video playlist)

originally posted by: andy06shake

But that does not discount evolution as far as I'm aware, the strongest will still attempt to rise to the top of the heap.

Darwinism has been the over-arching theme for American social philosophy, yet it is the reason for the wealth disparities that you described above. It replaces a community-driven cooperative with ravenous megaprofits at the expense of other humans and the earth.

The ideal philosophy, one that would incite utopia, would be the Christian philosophy of self-sacrifice for your friends and the world. If all adhered to this mentality, utopia would ensue overnight. "The greatest among you will be a servant"

originally posted by: Xtrozero
but all of it would be still the same as in complex organic molecules, such as amino acids, sugars, fatty acids, and nitrogen bases leading to RNA to DNA to simple life forms to more complex life forms.

Even the most basic microbe has a genome larger than 150,000 base pairs. This sort of coding cannot come to be by random chance. It would be equivalent to a monkey writing Shakespeare.

The idea that something spontaneously appeared in a complex form doesn't make sense to me. It would be like an airplane just appears in the sky and not start as raw minerals in the ground.

Just as quickly as a shadow appears when the light comes on. We are talking about an extra-dimensional Being. It is tough to fathom, let alone speak about an unspeakable God... but the complexity of the cosmos and biology render such a Being as necessary. This is not a cop-out, instead it is a beginning for the search for Truth.

a reply to: cooperton

Accept that Christianity has killed more people than can be counted throughout recorded history with its shenanigans, shell games, and crusades.

As to Darwinism being the over-arching theme for American social philosophy, that sound mate im in Glasgow.

We are all free to choose to believe as we wish cooperton, and if the Christians were in charge the colour of the day would not remain the same.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton

Accept that Christianity has killed more people than can be counted throughout recorded history with its shenanigans, shell games, and crusades.

"Turn the other cheek" has killed no one. Christ's philosophy is pure. But even those who were imperialists acting under the guise of Christianity, they still did not kill more than atheist leaders. Mao and Staling are by far the biggest killers in history, both notorious atheists.

As to Darwinism being the over-arching theme for American social philosophy, that sound mate im in Glasgow.

Oh cheers, would've guessed USA. But yeah it still applies for the whole Western world, capitalism runs on the mentality of survival of the fittest. Although I think if people's demand changes for the better, than capitalism could do wonders as a social construct.

We are all free to choose to believe as we wish cooperton, and if the Christians were in charge the colour of the day would not remain the same.

People are free to believe what they want, but there is an objective Truth to be found, which is what I am looking for.

I think it would be more so a bottom up approach, rather than the classical totalitarian top-down approach to ruling. Believe it or not the first Christian church was an egalitarian commune (Acts 4). This is what it means when the mountains and valleys will be equalized - there will no longer be classism because all will be equal. This is why, in the book of Judges, God didn't want the Israelites to have a ruler, because all his children are ideally equal.

a reply to: cooperton

Christ's philosophy could be as pure as the driven snow, people, on the other hand, well they are corruptible and easily led.

We have yet to devise a system of governance or religion for that matter thats fair.

One man's truth is another mans lie, perspective being a bit of a female dog in that department.

What we are after is a happy medium, and to date, a secular state or country is the best that we can hope for to provide a modicum freedom.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Why is science still studying evolution, because it’s not settled
Can you show me the empirical evidence chimps and humans have a common ancestor PLEASE
No assumptions, real hard science
Have you got that empirical evidence yet

Why would that not be? I'm not sure what kind of evidence you are looking for that you would accept. We have sequence chimp genome and it is 96% that of humans. Sequencing the genome is a BIG deal and is the clear cut proof that we are connected to the great ape family.

originally posted by: Raggedyman


No science to back up evolution, you can’t find any offered any but are blinded by it as a science, what a joke.
Science is a faith, you show me some empirical evidence and you win the whole argument forever

Genome sequencing is clear cut proof, but as I said I'm not sure what you are looking for as proof. With genome sequencing in just the last 5 years it has been a game changer as they can sequence at 10,000 times less in cost and extremely quicker than even 10 years ago. It has changed everything as how we look at things to include even how we thought humans have migrated around the world.

As a Christian, I can still be a Christian if evolution is a fact.
You act like evolution changes my life, like I fear evolution

Yet you, you have offered nothing, you act like you know but have nothing at all, nothing

Your evolution is nothing but a faith without empirical scientific evidence

Well that is good...

originally posted by: whereislogic
To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?

The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things. However, if the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.

After briefly considering the structure and function of a “simple” cell, what do you see​—evidence of many accidents or proof of brilliant design? If you are still unsure, take a closer look at the “master program” that controls the functions of all cells.

So none of this is peer review and is 100% bias towards evolution. The problem I have is creationist live on assumptions and one sided view points without opening up to other view points. The only "proof" your side has to suggest is complexity would be impossible without intelligent design and just doesn't see it as a normal process of how things work within our universe where small changes in the initial conditions lead to drastic changes in the results that is basically a continual process of complexity.

Also, evolution does not address whether life started as part of intelligent design or not, and that seems to always be the discussion here with you all that feel it is impossible for life to evolved without God just creating it already in a complex state.

I'm not a atheist BTW..

LOL

Another real smart man that wants a fly with arms as a proof.

Not wasting my time with you, buddy.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Peserc
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

You can do that, but it doesnt mean evolution is wrong and certainly nobody cares

Persec, stop, think read comprehend

I am not arguing evolution is wrong
I want empirical evidence it’s a true scientific statement

Stop arguing stupid strawman arguments and prove evolution with empirical evidence
I only asked for that, not pretty drawings, not YouTube, not Wikipedia
I asked for empirical evidence
Go work out what empirical scientific evidence before offering childish stuff again

Just wasting my time to write this:

Talking about strawman arguments while making a strawman argument. Typical hyprocrisy from brainless creationists. Using "hard" words and concepts (that you've no idea of) doesnt make you smarter, only make you look like an idiot



a reply to: Xtrozero

I keep asking myself the same question. What would creationists accept as a proof?? They can't answer that because the idea of a "proof" for evolution don't even cross their minds. They wan't to deny it because of their real weak faith

originally posted by: cooperton

Even the most basic microbe has a genome larger than 150,000 base pairs. This sort of coding cannot come to be by random chance. It would be equivalent to a monkey writing Shakespeare.

You keep looking at the path life as travel from the present and then looking backwards seeing only one line of impossibility to happen randomly. If we were going to suggest monkeys need to write Shakespeare using random hits on a keyboard, then I agree with you, but what if we had monkeys hit a key board and 4 billions later we just accept whatever is written? That is evolution as in life we see today did not have a define end state at the start as your example of Shakespeare would be. Now it is not completely random as there are specific laws that the universe follows, so we could throw laws into the monkeys as we only accepts random key hits that form a word, then we could say the words need to form a complete and correct sentence no matter what the sentence says. This is evolution...

Just as quickly as a shadow appears when the light comes on. We are talking about an extra-dimensional Being. It is tough to fathom, let alone speak about an unspeakable God... but the complexity of the cosmos and biology render such a Being as necessary. This is not a cop-out, instead it is a beginning for the search for Truth.

It is only complex to us in our perception. As example there isn't really anything called life in the universe outside of our concept that we created within our brain to explained a complex natural system.

originally posted by: Peserc

I keep asking myself the same question. What would creationists accept as a proof?? They can't answer that because the idea of a "proof" for evolution don't even cross their minds. They wan't to deny it because of their real weak faith

Their proof is only in faith that complex systems can not be random and real proof like what genome sequencing provides means nothing. They can't even accept even simple changes to life based on things like natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow for if they accept even one change their house of cards come down very quickly.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
They can't even accept even simple changes to life based on things like natural selection, genetic drift, and gene flow for if they accept even one change their house of cards come down very quickly.

Genetic drift, natural selection, and gene flow, are all involved with pre-set genes. There is no new function added. it is using what has always been present in the organism to allow it to adapt to various scenarios.

You're just referencing generic terms, but the nitty gritty biology behind it will show you that randomly mutating new functional proteins is a total myth.

originally posted by: Peserc
LOL

Another real smart man that wants a fly with arms as a proof.

Not wasting my time with you, buddy.

Show one example of any organism changing into another new organism and prove evolution is real.

You can't. You rely on faith.

a reply to: cooperton

One day, a caterpillar stops eating, hangs upside down from a twig or leaf and spins itself a silky cocoon or molts into a shiny chrysalis, then, within its protective casing, the caterpillar radically transforms its body, eventually emerging as a butterfly or moth.

Might not be changing into a completely new organism, but a dramatically different creature from where it began.

Granted metamorphosis is not evolution but a biological process involving a conspicuous and relatively abrupt change in the animal's body structure through cell growth and differentiation.

a reply to: andy06shake

You’re right metamorphosis is not evolution, what the hell is evolution anyway? Besides the latest confabulation of mish mash packaged as the “new” theory of evolution which will be proven wrong again and again... This is a lot like the definition of insanity... What’s with the insane desperate need for evolution?