Science indicates evolution of species.

a reply to: Xtrozero

None of that is empirical, sorry you don’t understand the science
Go study

a reply to: Xtrozero

And all evolution is suggesting is life is ever changing.

Unlike everything else in the Universe.
Right?

God is change. Change is God.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

None of that is empirical, sorry you don’t understand the science
Go study

Can you answer one question of mine, or provide you position in all this... As I said what do you see as empirical? Genome sequencing isn't?

You do know that nothing in science is 100%. We have what is called certainties in science and even they are not 100%. We look at all the available data and crate assumptions based on that. Even in your empirical data/scientific method that you so much desire still comes down to assumptions. We take whatever information we have and make assumptions. In the case of life evolving the assumptions are very creditable, but if God showed up tomorrow then all those credible assumptions are out the window, and that is how science works.

This is all more about looking at all the data available and making the best assumptions you can, nothing more nothing less.

a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you study 100s of millions of years of evolutionary change when we have only been around for a fraction of that time period, and only devised the tools to do so in a realistic manner in the past 5 decades alone?

Science changes and evolves just like life does as new and better methods become available down to technological progress.

Think about it this way, religion has been around a lot longer than the theory of evolution, what has it ever proven in all the time humans have been around?

originally posted by: Phage

God is change. Change is God.

God is everything and everything can be nothing...

a reply to: Xtrozero

You responded to something in the article by repeating the behaviour described there (I'll bold it below):

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.

The behaviour isn't very reasonable to me. Especially not when one is responding to a comment that was a response to one's own claims about the origin of life and so-called "simple life forms", clearly describing the notion "that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with" (a.k.a. "the chemical evolution theory of life" or simply "chemical evolution") and then "another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things" (a.k.a. "biological evolution", "macroevolution", "Darwinian evolution", "Darwinism", "neo-Darwinism", "the Modern Synthesis", they all make use of this notion); i.e. you brought it up yourself in a thread about "evolution". What a coincidence. I'd have to say the subject is entirely appropiate in a thread about "evolution" and it's quite lame to sidestep the dilemma mentioned above by constant repetition of the behaviour bolded there as if it is perfectly reasonable to do so; especially after one has already expressed some of these clearly evolutionary notions/philosophies/ideas and storylines as if they are factual/true/absolute/certain/correct, without error (you expressed the first evolutionary notion as if we "know" this to be a fact, the 2nd sentence that I quoted from you started a bit more nuanced, then again you used the phrase "would be" as if to indicate there were no other possibilities as the evolutionary storyline that followed).

Your evolutionary-based thinking and opinion about this subject was made quite clear in the initial comment I responded to, showing exactly what the article was describing, including or especially the notion of so-called "simple life forms" (just another evolutionary myth like mermaids, a.k.a. aquatic apemen).

Is Evolution’s Foundation Missing? (Awake!—1997)

WHAT is the essence of Darwin’s theory of evolution? “In its full-throated, biological sense, . . . evolution means a process whereby life arose from nonliving matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means.” Darwinian evolution postulates that “virtually all of life, or at least all of its most interesting features, resulted from natural selection working on random variation.”—Darwin’s Black Box—The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,* by Michael Behe, associate professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.

Finally, someone willing to properly define what the subject of "evolution" includes. But of course, his honest definition doesn't count right? "None of this is peer review and is 100% bias towards evolution"? The generic accusations of bias (even when quotations are used from evolutionists who are actually biased, but in favor of evolutionary philosophies*) and discrediting paintjobs of lacking evolutionary biased so-called "peer review", are just a symptom of the rampant religious fanatacism on display on this subforum. I personally don't care about the approval of your Church for the relevant facts, information and quotations from scientists and evolutionists (evolutionary philosophers) I share for consideration. *: as found in the comment and article you were responding to with that rather unthoughtful generic accusation for quick dismissal purposes, so it appears that one has a legitimate excuse not to address any detailed argument, point, inconvenient quotation, acknowledgement by an evolutionist of an/or inconvenient fact in detail.

“For those scientists who take it seriously, Darwinian evolution has functioned more as a philosophical belief system than as a testable scientific hypothesis. This quasi-religious function of the theory is, I think, what lies behind many of the extreme statements that you have doubtless encountered from some scientists opposing any critical analysis of neo-Darwinism in the classroom. It is also why many scientists make public statements about the theory that they would not defend privately to other scientists like me.”
― James A. Shapiro (professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Chicago; another evolutionist)

For some people, you can swap out the "quasi-" for "fanatical". Or if you want to be a bit more PC about it, you can use "zealous". But to be a bit more blunt and completely honest, fanaticism is my first association with the type of arguments and claims made and how things are expressed on this subforum most of the times.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: cooperton
...
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.

And it's actually evidence against evolution (the notion that 'nature did it', 'nature or the species itself found a way to evolve this ability') and for creation (engineering) and this ability having been programmed into the genome.

a reply to: Gothmog

The earth electromagnetic field?

May be...

primeval code ATS thread

Sincerly NC

originally posted by: Xtrozero

1. Chimps are the closest to us, and great apes in general are a close second. You must admit there are EXTREME similarities there, why?

It would make sense that phenotypically similar organisms would have similar genetic coding. A macbook pro will have more similarities with a macbook air than it will with a garage door opener... It's because they were designed that way.

2. Genome sequencing in the last 5 years has even put further connections to what we have been saying for a good while, why is there such close relationships here?

Although chimp and human genomes are similar, they aren't the fabled 99% match that propagandists want you to think. The actual identical match is about 84%, which would be expected considering they would need similar proteins for their similar body functions. That remaining 16% comprises over 500,000,000 DNA units, which is totally insurmountable for random mutation to alter effectively. It is a pipe dream. Biology is too complex to be explained by random chance. It's an old out-dated theory that Darwin himself wouldn't believe today given the evidence

3. We see evolution divergent all the time, happens very quickly, and so that suggests there are changes in life...ALL THE TIME. Case in point with humans Sickle cell anemia is a good example of this.

All organisms have mechanisms to adapt to various environments, this actually proves the opposite of evolution. If the adaptation was dormant in the organism to begin with, then obviously it is part of its pre-set arsenal to handle various stressors. Take for example bacteria turning up production of detoxification genes to handle antibiotics... it's not evolution, they are simply using something they already had to handle an environmental stress.

source (real empirical science)

4. The earth has reset life a number of time, with the latest (there are been a couple) snow ball earth 600 to 700 million years ago

What's the observable evidence for such an extraordinary claim? You can't just blindly repeat what you read on sci-blogs and expect it to be dogmatic fact. This is why science is so bastardized and allows such a perverse crude theory to persist. It's blind belief, without real evidence.

a reply to: whereislogic

Evolution seems to have managed to produce Humanity so Caterpillars that turn in to Butterflies via a biological process involving a change in the animal's body structure don't seem that much of a chore.

Programmed by nature and evolution not God.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Raggedyman

None of that is empirical, sorry you don’t understand the science
Go study

Can you answer one question of mine, or provide you position in all this... As I said what do you see as empirical? Genome sequencing isn't?

This is all more about looking at all the data available and making the best assumptions you can, nothing more nothing less.

Sorry, two statements that conflict are in your post
Do you comprehend what you are saying here

Genome sequencing is or isn’t empirical, you tell me
Looking at available data and making assumption is not empirical

You can’t have it both ways, science doesn’t allow for assumption.if genome sequencing is empirical then we don’t need assumption

How is genome sequencing empirical evidence for evolution is my question

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you study 100s of millions of years of evolutionary change when we have only been around for a fraction of that time period, and only devised the tools to do so in a realistic manner in the past 5 decades alone?

Science changes and evolves just like life does as new and better methods become available down to technological progress.

Think about it this way, religion has been around a lot longer than the theory of evolution, what has it ever proven in all the time humans have been around?

I am not selling a faith as a science, neither should you

You want me to accept evolution, you want everyone to accept evolution is a scientific fact
Prove the science, how, who cares, prove it is a fact
Not my job to prove it or tell others how to, million dollar grants are not coming my way

Stop saying it’s a fact and then offer no empirical evidence

How hard can it be?
Keep telling me it’s proven, well then prove it, it’s all I am asking

a reply to: andy06shake

Evolution seems to have, really, prove it scientifically
Believe assumption, faith and your beliefs

Be so gullible to believe that

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Again, I am not arguing ID, I am asking for scientific evidence that is empirical for evolution

Not interested

1. Chimps are the closest to us, and great apes in general are a close second. You must admit there are EXTREME similarities there, why?

2. Genome sequencing in the last 5 years has even put further connections to what we have been saying for a good while, why is there such close relationships here?

3. We see evolution divergent all the time, happens very quickly, and so that suggests there are changes in life...ALL THE TIME. Case in point with humans Sickle cell anemia is a good example of this.

4. The earth has reset life a number of time, with the latest (there are been a couple) snow ball earth 600 to 700 million years ago that pretty much reset life back to simple lifeforms to see it explode back once again with mammals only gaining a foot hold late in the game due to a massive extinction of the primary life of the time to allow mammals that chance.

5. Life in general is a very chaotic thing..The life that created the 20% oxygen in our atmosphere is nothing like life today, as example. Oxygen is a by product of life...

6. To accomplish experiment evolution at the species level is basically impossible since it takes so much time even with the fastest life forms, but then I keep asking why is there 360,000 species of beetles as example? Did God really like beetles, or comparable to fruit flies, bugs have a much faster rate of generations, so does this suggest that there is evolution at the species level going on here? Why are not chimps and humans like beetles as being different species, but very close? I guess looks matter to you, but genomes show a different picture.

The only way to suggest evolution doesn't exist is to think God created the universe and everything in it 6000 years ago. I will accept that from you and I will not even debate it, but if God didn't then there has been a constant evolution of life. I say evolution such as Darwin is like the forward of a 10,000 page book as to what we know today compared to what he observed and wrote about.

Myself and others have provided a lot of information here, and you have provided nothing...nothing... All you say is you want a scientific method to prove it, and scientific method only goes so far, and so is not the singular means to sciences.

I asked you if you believed in Black holes or God and you have yet to answer a single question of mine, nothing once again, so as I have already said I have no clue where you are coming from in all this discussion, and you continually fail to provide a single point in all this.

Now you can deny everything I have just said and I need to ask why? At least state your position or we are are at nothing once again. If you were actuality interested in any of this you would research it all yourself. We have given you directions to do just that, but for some reason you want me to prove it all in a post. I can't do it justice in a post, so just do your own research and find the right answer.

All this is trying to explain the how life happens as it does... It doesn't explain the why... Evolution is a how...not a why... And all evolution is suggesting is life is ever changing.

In response to #4 in your notes

Worst extinction level events in Earth's history

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you study 100s of millions of years of evolutionary change when we have only been around for a fraction of that time period, and only devised the tools to do so in a realistic manner in the past 5 decades alone?

Science changes and evolves just like life does as new and better methods become available down to technological progress.

Think about it this way, religion has been around a lot longer than the theory of evolution, what has it ever proven in all the time humans have been around?

I am not selling a faith as a science, neither should you

You want me to accept evolution, you want everyone to accept evolution is a scientific fact
Prove the science, how, who cares, prove it is a fact
Not my job to prove it or tell others how to, million dollar grants are not coming my way

Stop saying it’s a fact and then offer no empirical evidence

How hard can it be?
Keep telling me it’s proven, well then prove it, it’s all I am asking

How about you convince us instead, show us why your conclusions are more logically defensible

a reply to: Gothmog

thats not how evolution works. Variation, natural selection, descent with modification, random mutation are the principles of evolution. No god needed.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Raggedyman

None of that is empirical, sorry you don’t understand the science
Go study

Can you answer one question of mine, or provide you position in all this... As I said what do you see as empirical? Genome sequencing isn't?

You do know that nothing in science is 100%. We have what is called certainties in science and even they are not 100%. We look at all the available data and crate assumptions based on that. Even in your empirical data/scientific method that you so much desire still comes down to assumptions. We take whatever information we have and make assumptions. In the case of life evolving the assumptions are very creditable, but if God showed up tomorrow then all those credible assumptions are out the window, and that is how science works.

This is all more about looking at all the data available and making the best assumptions you can, nothing more nothing less.

In case you're not aware, Raggedyman has been doing this song and dance for years. He's an idiot who likes to annoy people with ignorant posts that contribute nothing to the conversation.

Ignore him and he disappears into the ether until he sees another opportunity to display ignorance. Double digit IQ on the downhill side of schizophrenia.

a reply to: Gothmog

nothing guides adaptation. Populations are lots of individuals with traits. Individual traits that are best suited to their environment will be have a higher likelihood of being passed on to their offspring which are also likely to be better adapted to their environment. Slight mutations will arise and may lead to even better adaptations. Hemoglobin is a perfect example of this.

Most mutations are silent. 3 letter codons specify amino acids so for example CUA, CUU, CUC, CUG all code for leucine. If a slight mutation to the 3rd position changed CUA into CUU, it will still code for the amino acid leucine and you never even know the mutation happened.

You really need to take some biology and genetics courses.

a reply to: Raggedyman

I will believe what can be proven or surmised through logical reasoning and scientific methodology.

You will believe in religion.

We have been here, and like many others have pointed out, there is plenty of evidence to suggest the theory of evolution is the colour of the day, you just don't want to read the data nor accept the premise.

Gullibility and religion go hand in hand because people who refuse to think for themselves are easy to control.

It's gullible to believe the God formed the Earth in only 7 days, just as its pretty much preposterous to entertain the notion that our Earth is only 7000 odd years old, so if thats mince, why entertain the rest of the crazy stories with so much hypocrisy and at play?

a reply to: andy06shake

As opposed to believing evolution is a science with no scientific evidence
You are pretty funny

Funny, I think you are as religious, probably more so than I
Certainly place a lot of faith in evolution

I think you might need to study intelligent design before pretending you have a clue