Evolution of what?

[Dan From Smithville]

It seems to me that evolutionists can't see the whole system like I want to... Maybe they are forced to see only one chapter at a time, and so on, one by one, until they finish the story in the reality of the modern biodiversity. How convenient!

I prefer to see the complete picture, to realize all the fiction that is in that story. I need to think by myself.

And here again: What did an apple tree have to adapt to and be able to survive to become a banana plant? ...I am referring to that evolution of plants; I am not satisfied with the simplism of some storytellers.

I agree. You need to think for yourself. But I suspect you will just toe the party line and make unsupported statements like the one above. How is dismissing things you clearly do not understand seeing the complete picture? What is the fiction that is in the theory of evolution and the observations of the phenomenon? Any references you care to share in support of that or is it just words?

No one claims that bananas evolved from apple trees. Where do you come up with this stuff?

I think you certainly are satisfied with the "simplism" [sic] of some storytellers by all that you have demonstrated.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am a very coherent person. I am showing all incoherences of the theory of evolution to rational thinkers, so they can think by themselves and do not accept what others want they to.

No. You are not. You are just voicing denial without any apparent basis other than your own personal beliefs.

What are you doing if you are not accepting what others have told you? Given that it fits with a position of your faith group, those positions must be accepted or else and isn't based on a reasoned review of the evidence, what other explanation is there?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

About 99% of all scientists accept that evolution is a fact. For those that understand the science the science deniers are less than one tenth of a percent. This is the first time that I have heard of a tenth of a percent being called "many".

According to recent estimates, there are now 8,800,000 scientists in the world. Those accepting the theory of evolution range between 97-99%. So, somewhere between 8,536,000 to 8,712,000 scientists. I would imagine that 99% of biologist certainly accept the theory.

None of that is many by any rational comparison.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is the coherent alternative then?

I think we have seen it, but I cannot accept it as a viable alternative or consider it coherent.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are many non-evolutionist professional scientists ... You are living in a bubble and so, your opinion is irrelevant.

Have an excellent weekend.

No there are not "many." The only scientists in USA are associated with Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute. Less than a dozen or so out of the thousands of scientists in the fields related to evolution.

Level of support for evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nearly all (around 97%) of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity, with 87% accepting that evolution occurs due to natural processes, such as natural selection.[1][2] Scientific associations have strongly rebutted and refuted the challenges to evolution proposed by intelligent design proponents

 

[sayak83]

Do evolutionists also have a family tree (phylogenetic) for plants, just like the one they invented for animals?

If the answer is yes: can you superimpose one on top of the other to find out what did the first animals eat, those that did not yet "know" the plants and fruits that would supposedly appear millions of years later?

Plants existed before the animals that ate them. Plants colonized dry land millions of years before any animal did so....as clearly demonstrated by the fossil record.
Next question?

 

[sayak83]

It seems to me that evolutionists can't see the whole system like I want to... Maybe they are forced to see only one chapter at a time, and so on, one by one, until they finish the story in the reality of the modern biodiversity. How convenient!

I prefer to see the complete picture, to realize all the fiction that is in that story. I need to think by myself.

And here again: What did an apple tree have to adapt to and be able to survive to become a banana plant? ...I am referring to that evolution of plants; I am not satisfied with the simplism of some storytellers.

Since an apple tree never became a banana plant, I am struggling to understand your question.

 

[Eli G]

Since an apple tree never became a banana plant, I am struggling to understand your question.

We think similar ... since an ape never became a human...

 

[sayak83]

We think similar ... since an ape never became a human...

Correct. Humans are apes. So there is no question of becoming, is there?

 

[Eli G]

According to recent estimates, there are now 8,800,000 scientists in the world. Those accepting the theory of evolution range between 97-99%. So, somewhere between 8,536,000 to 8,712,000 scientists. I would imagine that 99% of biologist certainly accept the theory.

None of that is many by any rational comparison.

"accepting the theory"???? Hehehehe.
I don't even know what you mean with that.

 

[Eli G]

Correct. Humans are apes. So there is no question of becoming, is there?

Speak for yourself.

 

[rocala]

I think this example alone disproves your claim. The evolution of species and environmental change can be hand in hand. I don't think too many evolutionists are unaware of that either.

Evolution - Understanding Global Change

ugc.berkeley.edu

 

[Eli G]

Do you realize that when civilizations appear on the human scene, there is already an entire arsenal of knowledge, arts and sciences that were not known before civilization?

Isn't that knowledge also supposed to have evolved?

You have too many missing links... but also entire chains are missing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

"accepting the theory"???? Hehehehe.
I don't even know what you mean with that.

I know.

Accepting the theory as a logical and reasonable explanation of the evidence. You've heard of evidence right? It's those things you don't have.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you realize that when civilizations appear on the human scene, there is already an entire arsenal of knowledge, arts and sciences that were not known before civilization?

Isn't that knowledge also supposed to have evolved?

You have too many missing links... but also entire chains are missing.

No one has yet to establish that every link in the chain needs to be known.

How many missing links in your own chain and yet, here you are pronouncing judgement on knowledge you clearly do not understand.

 

[Eli G]

I know.

Accepting the theory as a logical and reasonable explanation of the evidence. You've heard of evidence right? It's those things you don't have.

There is not any evidence of evolution of species. But that you want to believe. Whoever "accepts" that theory, does it by faith

... or maybe because he doesn't have alternative for any reason; and that "any" means ANY, like no one wants to lose his job and things like that.

Truth is not something you decide voting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There is not any evidence of evolution of species.

Wrong. Denial and closing a mind does not eliminate evidence.

But that you want to believe. Whoever "accepts" that theory, does it by faith

Sorry. You have been told wrong. Acceptance is based on the evidence.

... or maybe because he doesn't have alternative for any reason; and that "any" means ANY, like no one wants to lose his job and things like that.

Or maybe someone doesn't want to consider the evidence and doesn't want to be disfellowshipped for having independent ideas, thoughts and learning.

Truth is not something you decide voting.

But that is what you are proposing, so you must believe that it is.

 

[Eli G]

I see nothing logical or rational in believing that something that obviously shows intelligent design has arisen on its own. Nor do I see anything strange in those who think they are apes believing such a thing. An ape wouldn't understand that someone built the house in the middle of the jungle.

Have an excellent day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I see nothing logical or rational in believing that something that obviously shows intelligent design has arisen on its own. Nor do I see anything strange in those who think they are apes believing such a thing.

Back to the seemingly passive aggressive technique of not answering directly I see. Oh well.

If it is so obvious why have you and all the others claiming that failed so miserably in demonstrating it?

Have an excellent day.

I am.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do you realize that when civilizations appear on the human scene, there is already an entire arsenal of knowledge, arts and sciences that were not known before civilization?

Isn't that knowledge also supposed to have evolved?

You have too many missing links... but also entire chains are missing.

I've asked this before and not received an answer, but do Jehovah's Witnesses receive some sort of training in the use of emojis in online conversations?

It seems prolific among the posters of that faith group.

Does it help? Do you get some sort of psychological boost from it when you don't really have anything else?

I'm just curious.