Evolution Vs. God

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Cypress

 

If you cannot observe something but believe it, then it is a religion.

But if you can observe it historically, test it, do the math, look at the data, compare it to alternatives, and it always comes out on top... We call that a fact, A.K.A scientific theory.

Except that saying something is historical fact is at best guess work. And since evolution cannot be observed it is unscientific.

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by LightOrange

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Cypress

 

If you cannot observe something but believe it, then it is a religion.

But if you can observe it historically, test it, do the math, look at the data, compare it to alternatives, and it always comes out on top... We call that a fact, A.K.A scientific theory.

Except that saying something is historical fact is at best guess work. And since evolution cannot be observed it is unscientific.


Don't tell Lenski. He's been observing it in his lab since 1988.

reply to post by Fromabove

Except that saying something is historical fact is at best guess work. And since evolution cannot be observed it is unscientific.

Except that evolution has been observed, and is therefore "scientific". The theory of evolution seeks to explain the phenomenon of evolution, much as the theory of gravity seeks to explain the phenomenon of gravity. Evolution, the phenomenon, has been observed. Gravity, the phenomenon, has been observed. There is no difference between these phenomena. And atoms. And germs. And circuits. And all of the other observable phenomena that are explained by theories.

Why does it vex you and UnifiedSerenity so that evolution exists?

reply to post by iterationzero


Gravity has been observed in real time. Evolution suggests events that may have taken place under circumstances that are assumed to be present at that time long ago. Evolution, that is, change of one kind into a complete and new form, or another present kind has never been observed.

Originally posted by Fromabove
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Gravity has been observed in real time. Evolution suggests events that may have taken place under circumstances that are assumed to be present at that time long ago. Evolution, that is, change of one kind into a complete and new form, or another present kind has never been observed.

on the contrary.. i am observing it right now.. it is constantly occurring and being observed in an endless spiral of evolute feedback..

you're a human, you can only see it after it has happened.. "time" is not real, you can't measure change with time.. you can only measure time with change..

you see? it's tricky to explain..

listen to this and think about it for a moment..


edit : wow, that was fast! nice one peter =)

Originally posted by peter vlar
reply to post by Fromabove

 

Actually I suppose it depends on how narrowly you define evolving from one kind to another. I'm Lenski's 25 year and continuing experiment that consists of over 50,000 generations at this point one strain of E. Coli that evolved to utilize citric acid as a carbon source in a purely aerobic environment. Has the bacteria evolved into a mammal? No of course not. But it doesn't alter the fact that the E. coli has shown both eviction art and adaptive traits. Additionally while its impossible to see evolution of a bonobo into something else in real time, following the MtDNA and trailing the haplogroups back through time you can for all intents and purposes watch the movie in reverse and get a very solid picture of how you got to the end point.

reply to post by Fromabove


Actually I suppose it depends on how narrowly you define evolving from one kind to another. I'm Lenski's 25 year and continuing experiment that consists of over 50,000 generations at this point one strain of E. Coli that evolved to utilize citric acid as a carbon source in a purely aerobic environment. Has the bacteria evolved into a mammal? No of course not. But it doesn't alter the fact that the E. coli has shown both eviction art and adaptive traits. Additionally while its impossible to see evolution of a bonobo into something else in real time, following the MtDNA and trailing the haplogroups back through time you can for all intents and purposes watch the movie in reverse and get a very solid picture of how you got to the end point.

reply to post by peter vlar


I am going by what the evolutionists claim. They can prove adaptation within a species, but they cannot and have not shown changing of kind from one species to another. A horse is a horse, a fruit fly is a fruit fly, bacteria are bacteria, and finches are finches. Show me them becoming something else, and oh. don't let a scientist design it with new genes etc. Just watch them in the case of short lived specimens, change their environment etc, but no monkey business of gene splicing etc..

The evidence is no where to be found. I am not talking about species adaptation which they like to call micro evolution which would be better called intra-species evolution. Show me interspecies changes. Show me changing of kinds. That is what Darwin claimed. He claimed we come from common ancestors, so show me. Darwin said we would find the intermediate changes in the fossil record and despite thousands upon thousands of fossils cataloged we do not see that. Thus it is a belief system and should not be taught as fact and truth. It in fact has less proof to go on that Christianity which has historical proof of events in the bible, eye witness accounts handed down, and proof of data systems in DNA, Fibonacci sequence, golden ratio, and the world around us. People can choose to not accept that faith, but evolution stands on much more flimsy proof.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Well can you show any evidence for a better explanation than evolution? So far I haven't seen one.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So what is the mechanism that prevents "microevolution" from becoming "macroevolution?" This is a straight forward question and I'm looking for a straight forward answer. I don't want anything about the origins of cells or life or anything like that. I don't want to hear about your (baseless) issues with dating. I just want to know why you think it's impossible for "microevolution" to become "macroevolution" over many generations. And before you answer, just remember that it has been explained to you time and again that mutations can "add information" to DNA.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


If macro evolution was so simple and obvious then just show it. Adaptation within a species does not prove evolution, and no matter your mental gymnastics, there is no proof of it. Why must you all make is so complicated?

Your theory says we came from common ancestors and incrementally changed over millions of years, and Darwin expected to find the proof in the fossil record and yet it never has materialized except in hoaxes and fantasy drawings or 3D models that don't reflect the true skeleton as in the example of Lucy who really has ape hands and feet, but they use human hands and feet on the dummy.

So, just produce the proof and I'll accept it.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


So let's see here. You readily admit that a species can change due to genetic mutations across generations. You also cannot provide a mechanism that prevents these mutations from accruing over many generations and as a result producing a new species. Furthermore, the Bible says nothing against evolution. So why do you so adamantly argue against evolution? It is probably the most well supported theory in any branch of science. So if you are spending all this time against evolution does that mean you also have an issue with the theory of gravity, or cell theory, or plate tectonics theory?

reply to post by Xcalibur254

You got the OP to accept that adaptation happens, way back on page 4 but, he/she refuses to accept that adaptation is part of evolution. Stop banging your head on that brick wall.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


What about the 20+ other hominids that have been found? You can't just keep making claims that none of these species have been found when we have found 20 in between modern human and our apelike ancestor we share with chimps. 20+ all showing slow change over time. Do the research instead of just pretending it doesn't exist and dismissing all facts posted before reading them. Ape hands vs human hands is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. They didn't find the hands or feet for Lucy, so your claim that they were apelike holds no ground in reality. It's a guess and even if it were true, it wouldn't disprove evolution in the least. Lucy comes before the homo genus and you act like ape hands are drastically different. Look at a chimp's hands.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity



i already showed you "changes of a kind" and how stupid the idea of "changes of a kind" is.

you dont have a fish give birth to a reptile.

but you do have fish that develop protolungs. new species. this species develops better lungs. another new species. it develops legs, or leg-like fins, and becomes another new species. this continues until many generations and species changes later, you have a reptile.

also, many of those intermediate species still exist. check out the lungfish for example.

reply to post by stormson


You have not shown anything like changing in stages to a new kind. You know, it's only your theory saying millions of years and it's only thousands of species that have changed, so can't you show one species changing incrementally to a new species?

You want to point to adaptive things or mutated things in one species that is still the same species and say, "VOILA, change to another kind!" and it is not otherwise why would they have been so damn excited about Ida? They don't believe that is the "Missing Link" in a mass "We are the experts and here is your proof!" but you do. The evidence is not there and the top evolutionists admit it, but you won't.

reply to post by Barcs


See, more disingenuous claims from you. You admit they did not find Lucy's hands and feet so they just gave her human ones, but they have found other Australopithecus skeletons and they now ADMIT they have apelike hands and feet, and that their wrists lock and they walk on all fours just like apes, and NOT like humans!

See, more bs and you know it because this has already been documented on this thread.

There could be a thousand hominids, and it doesn't mean change to new kinds because there is not linkage. If we came from apes, then why are there still apes, we are better in so many ways, or why are there no other intermediate examples? You know, it's just as easy for me to say, God made a bunch of different ones, and the strong have survived, and the weak have died off. See, that is my theory, and I have actual proof to back it up, and don't need to pretend there are fossils out there somewhere to prove my theory. Now, I can't put God on a table for you, so there is where my theory means it cannot be observed. You cannot put forth the necessary fossils and only the people on this thread and others like you keep saying it's proved, when the top evolutionists admit they don't have the fossils to prove it.

Originally posted by UnifiedSerenity
reply to post by Xcalibur254

 

If macro evolution was so simple and obvious then just show it. Adaptation within a species does not prove evolution, and no matter your mental gymnastics, there is no proof of it. Why must you all make is so complicated?

Your theory says we came from common ancestors and incrementally changed over millions of years, and Darwin expected to find the proof in the fossil record and yet it never has materialized except in hoaxes and fantasy drawings or 3D models that don't reflect the true skeleton as in the example of Lucy who really has ape hands and feet, but they use human hands and feet on the dummy.

So, just produce the proof and I'll accept it.

What about the mammal-like reptiles, the pelycosaurs and therapsids of the Permian and Triassic? They were synapsids but not mammalian. Surely this is evidence of mammals evolving from reptiles?

Is it thought that all biological life has evolved from the same first strand of DNA or something? I dont get how all life has a common ancestor if life supposedly began in a 'soupy state'.

ImaFungi
Is it thought that all biological life has evolved from the same first strand of DNA or something? I dont get how all life has a common ancestor if life supposedly began in a 'soupy state'.

Intersting article on this here.

guardianlv.com...

Proteins resurrected from reconstructions of prototypic forms may have existed in single-celled organisms that are the progenitors of all life.

The results of a study of one such protein were reported by Spanish and US scientists in the journal Structure.

Through computer analysis, gene sequences in a protein called thioredoxin, sampled from many modern organisms, were tracked backwards to those that may have been extant four billion years ago. Bacteria were utilized to create chemically active proteins using the ancient models. This process allowed scientists to determine the molecular structure and the properties of the predecessor protein.

The thioredoxin protein was selected because it is an enzyme with a variety of metabolic functions in cells, and is shared by almost all earthly life, from the simplest bacteria to human beings. It may be hypothesized that the single-celled ancestor of all life on Earth may have had the gene.

There is also speculation that ancient protein rode on meteorites to Earth four billion years ago, emigrating from other planets such as Mars, as these planets experienced climatic changes that made them increasingly hostile to the protein. Mars may well have been a more conducive place for protein to be than Earth during the first 500 million years after the solar system’s formation.

Originally posted by ForbiddenDesire

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
..why the need to convince (convert)? because they want to teach their dogma in schools as an alternative theory... that's why. Evolutionary theory is not a religion, Creationism is. You don't think it's important? Then go back to eating your Cheetoes and watching the Mylie Cyrus videos.


And you can keep your snide BS remarks to yourself.

Ha. I thought your last sentence was golden but the sentence above it was contradicting it.
(I actually eat crickets instead of Cheetoes and I watch Elton John videos, all day, every day.)

I don't live in the US of A, so to me it's less of a issue. I do have a friend who's very religious.
My mother is religious but she gave me a choice to choose, I thank her for that.
But I would have opposed it anyway.

Here in the Netherlands religious people are a dying race. Churches only serve old people.
Religious people here will become unicorns. Well Christians, that is.
Muslims might become some sort of counter culture since they are pushed into a corner.

And faith? People will worship other things.

edit on 30-8-2013 by ForbiddenDesire because: (no reason given)

Oh don't get me wrong... I have no issues with religion or faith as long as it's kept in the church where it belongs.