The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe in It

[Timothy Spurlin]

Ahh another one who cant read

And you really have no idea what peer review entails, have you?

Did the research get peer reviewed or not? What journal was it published in?

 

[Nakosis]

What I find interesting is that no earlier form of "evolution," such as shrimp, apes, bears and the like feel the need to make and put on clothing. (Neither do butterflies, moths, worms, birds...etc. None of them make, put on, and wear clothing.)

They don't have to. Humans because of our susceptibility to weather conditions had to develop clothing to survive. That and later on the idea of modesty promoted by religions.

 

[ChristineM]

Did the research get peer reviewed or not? What journal was it published in?

And another who cannot read or who does not understand.

I stated the paper was published a couple of weeks ago.

That means it has not had time for peer review

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

And another who cannot read or who does not understand.

I stated the paper was published a couple of weeks ago.

That means it has not had time for peer review

I ask questions to clarify about the research. So it's not in a journal?

 

[ChristineM]

I ask questions to clarify about the research. So it's not in a journal?

Like i said the paper was published 2 weeks ago, i very much doubt it will be in a journal

 

[ChristineM]

I ask questions to clarify about the research. So it's not in a journal?

You may also find this interesting

Evolution and physiology: a new synthesis

 

[leroy]

No, but rather, mutations brought on by environmental conditions. If there is a cause then there is nothing random about them

Ok so we agree on this point. Organisms did not evolve by a proces of random mutatios and NS (relevant mutations are not random but rather driven by environmental conditions)

 

[leroy]

Are mutations truly random?
Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones

Are mutations truly random?

Irrelevant, that is not what scientist typically mean by "random" in the context of genetics and mutations.

This what random means in this context
"the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. "

 

[Cooky]

The Lie of Evolution and the Stupidity of Those Who Believe It | Wisdom of God

Just couldn't resist talking about this. This is kind of silly.

For example...

Yet never have elements, nor molecules, nor dirt, nor rocks, nor even water made themselves form into living organisms

Evolution doesn't cover abiogenesis.

Meaning only one pair of a male and female of the kind “dog” was created, only one pair of a male and female of the kind “horse” was created, and from these parent kinds, came forth many varieties within their kinds.

Evolution isn't about a dog birthing a completely new breed. It is about a gradual change in each species. Depending on environment an external forces, some changes allow better chances for survival and just because they survive better and procreate more, that genetic trait becomes dominant in the species.

The big problem here IMO is these folks have a strawman idea idea of what evolution is and are stuck on attacking the strawman instead evolution.

Do micro-organisms have sexual intercourse?

 

[ChristineM]

Irrelevant, that is not what scientist typically mean by "random" in the context of genetics and mutations.

This what random means in this context
"the consequences of a mutation have no influence whatsoever on the probability that this mutation will or will not occur. In other words, mutations occur randomly with respect to whether their effects are useful. Thus, beneficial DNA changes do not happen more often simply because an organism could benefit from them. "

Absolutely relevant


Random : proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern.

 

[Cooky]

Look at grandma and grandpa!

the first creatures to have sex, around 385 million years ago.
We have this ancient fish to thank for the act of sex

 

[Nakosis]

Do micro-organisms have sexual intercourse?

Depends on the micro-organism. Some bacteria do.

 

[leroy]

You asked me what I was referring to. Of course it's logically possible for them to be separate but I'm saying (to return to the original point), that the evidence for common descent via the mechanism of evolution by natural selection, is way beyond reasonable doubt.

This is well established science that pretty much every scientist who studies these things agrees about, and of the tiny, tiny minority of those who don't, almost all have an obvious religious vested interest in it being wrong.

That simply is not true, the current position of science is that there is strong evidence for universal common ancestry, but it has not been stablishes as an uncontrovertial fact (source
Was the universal common ancestry proved?)

Did you read this: Genesis and the genome (pdf)?

That we share an ancestor with chimps is an obvious and almost uncontrovertial fact......but to say that therefore ALL life is related is a veeeeery big stredge.

 

[Cooky]

That's why men have two testicles, because back in fish days, men had two penises.

...After thousands of years of mating with the lady fish, we evolved a single penis in the middle. In the same way, men later grew useless, non-working nipples from the women.

 

[Segev Moran]

The evidence for god is as anecdotal, cannot be verified or observed

You are mistaken.
If you study and understand, you will discover much evidence to God.
Let me rephrase that, i think you are maybe looking for a physical evidence for god, which is not something you can find.
Think of it as saying you want to prove gravity by observing it... you cannot. you can prove gravity by observing it effect. the same goes for God.
There is plenty of evidence for its effect, you won't find God itself.

 

[Segev Moran]

There is no equivalence.
Evolution (like all scientific theories) leads us to expect certain objective, observable evidence and rules out us seeing other, objective and observable things.

Agreed.

Its evidence is intersubjectively verifiable.

Agree.
[/QUOTE]
The same is not true for any evidence for god(s)
[/QUOTE]
disagree

at least, unless you have something I've never heard of before...

I guess i did if we are in a disagreement.
A proof of God is the same as proof of gravity or dark energy or dark matter.
We have a clear evidence it is there, we simply call it God. We can't see gravity per-say, we can only see how it affects us.
The same goes for God.
You can observe God. it is impossible.
You can observe its affect. It is very clear and very objective once you understand how to look at it.
There are certain rules that are described that once studied (a very long study) can give you more than enough evidence that ANYONE can understand.

I chose to dismiss it until it became too clear that i felt quite stupid to claim it is not there.
Many people choose to disregard it, many simply don't understand it, many can't realize they see it, many cant see it.
I was for a time in each of these groups.
I didn't see it, when i saw it i didn't really understood it, when i understood it i disregarded it. today it is simply overwhelming that i cannot treat it as nonsense as i used to.

 

[Segev Moran]

What objective evidence do you have for a god? You do know the difference between subjective and objective?

Lol.. i know the difference probably much more than you do
I'll ask you a few questions before i give you my answer if it is okay.
(Please try to answer seriously.. this is not some theistic trick to avoid your question, rather a sort of a way for me to understand your way of thought)

You can answer very shortly.. i don't need a detailed scientific explanation for each of them. i know the science behind each of these questions , i just need to understand what you mean by objective evidence.

What objective evidence do you have for atoms?
What objective evidence do you have for particles?
What objective evidence do you have for quantum physics?
What objective evidence do you have for gravity?
What objective evidence do you have for dark energy?
What objective evidence do you have for energy?
What objective evidence do you have for death?
What objective evidence do you have for thoughts?
What objective evidence do you have for imagination?
What objective evidence do you have for anger?
What objective evidence do you have for fear?
What objective evidence do you have for courage?
What objective evidence do you have for randomness?

Thanks

 

[ChristineM]

You are mistaken.
If you study and understand, you will discover much evidence to God.
Let me rephrase that, i think you are maybe looking for a physical evidence for god, which is not something you can find.
Think of it as saying you want to prove gravity by observing it... you cannot. you can prove gravity by observing it effect. the same goes for God.
There is plenty of evidence for its effect, you won't find God itself.

Of course there is no physical evidence, evidence is not in the mind but is physical.

Gravity can be measured, it is a physical force.

As i said, there is no evidence for god, if anyone could provide such evidence then there is a Nobel prize waiting for them, they would have the worlds religious and political leaders on their speed dial. Such evidence would be a huge thing, by its nature it would necessarily destroy faith.

No, there is no evidence but there is faith. There is faith because there is no evidence.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

You think you are being funny or clever but...
... Anyone studying the Langkawi bent-toed gecko or Pygmy three-toed sloth, the bamboo shark. These species and many more are being studied by scientists because they are evolving rapidly

I think the ^ above^ is useful information, and even in the Genesis account where lower life forms are mentioned there is the possibility God could have used some from of evolution in those creative works, however, a BIG however, in Scripture God did Not use any form of evolution in the creation of man. In other words, No way did man evolve.
No gecko, sloth, bamboo shark, etc. will ever evolve into an intelligent life as humans are intelligent.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Of course there is no physical evidence, evidence is not in the mind but is physical.
Gravity can be measured, it is a physical force.
As i said, there is no evidence for god, if anyone could provide such evidence then there is a Nobel prize waiting for them, they would have the worlds religious and political leaders on their speed dial. Such evidence would be a huge thing, by its nature it would necessarily destroy faith.
No, there is no evidence but there is faith. There is faith because there is no evidence.

Or, to me there is ' credulity ' ( blind faith ) because there is No evidence.
I find as physical evidence is the existence of the physical or material Bible.
I find as physical evidence are the physical people who follow the Bible on a grand international scale.
I find as physical evidence what is recorded at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8 is done just as foretold it would be done.
So, faith ( trust / confidence ) even in seeing the order of the universe shows a Higher Power.