Evidence For And Against Evolution

JasAnMa said:

It's a bad argument to go against the idea that geological processes have been at least close to the same food millions of years? That's a huge assumption. And I do realize that there was Ash in the deposit below the volcano, there were many other sediments as well and they were deposited rapidly as well as peat. We have direct evidence that sedimentary rock can firm quickly and very little to think it forms slowly.

Click to expand...

Why would you expect anything to be any different? If you want to claim a magical difference the burden of proof is upon you. There were volcanic deposits in the past too. You are terribly confused at best. Once again, that is a volcanic deposit. You cannot compare that to sedimentary deposits.

JasAnMa said:

1: An example that any law of nature creates order from chaos.
2: all things move toward entropy and away from order. Entropy can be brought toward order only when the right information is added.

Click to expand...

1. You do not understand "scientific law". But here is one example, the crystalization of minerals from a melt.

2. That is not what the Second Law of Thermodynamics claims. It is overly simplistic. By your understanding you could not exist. You could not advance from a single general cell to the countless specialized cells with your version of the law.

JasAnMa said:

Just because they make things happen does not mean they bring order from chaos... When a plate near the ocean drops it causes a tsunami that forces anything in it's way... Out of the way. It made a lot happen but it didn't bring order. The laws themselves cant bring about order. I'm not sure how anythingi said is ignoring the forces of nature...I actually mentioned that they were forces.

Click to expand...

Again you need to support this claim. You are using the overly simplistic version of the 2nd Law for an isolated system. The Earth is not an isolated system.

YoursTrue said:

Kind of like Haeckel's concept, is that right. (Where's the proof? The observed concept? What nonsense, I am realizing while it may sound like a puff piece -- philosophical -- there really is nothing to back it up in real-time.) While I certainly don't have all the answers, you guys have certainly helped me to see what holes there are in the philosophical meanderings of some thinkers.

Click to expand...

The nested hierarchy in genetics as well as comparative anatomy is an observed thing. It's a fact. It factually exists. And it is exactly the result expected from a process like evolution. It's a tree. A family tree, which reflects relationships and common ancestry.

YoursTrue said:

OK, so show me in real-time about splitting lineages

Click to expand...

Are you asking me to show you "in real-time" a process that takes several thousands, if not millions, of years to unfold?

In other words, show me the proof.

Click to expand...

Phylogenetic tree - Wikipedia

OR as you would say, where's the "evidence" (beyond philosophical meanderings and musings)?

Click to expand...

In phylogenetics, comparative anatomy and distribution of species.
Any one of these will do. Taken together, they all converge on the same answer eventhough each are independent lines of evidence.

When you have multiple independent lines of evidence converging on the same answer, that's when you have accuracy and explanatory power.

Ignoring the facts don't make them go away

YoursTrue said:

Would you say the Denisovans (or whatever they're called) were relatively dumb? And, what about the bonobos' brains? Also just not as clever, shall we say, about clothing, scientific methods, reading and writing and musing about black holes in the universe as humans?

Click to expand...

Your objections make no sense. If you are just going to point out the things that are unique to humans, then all you are doing is pointing out the things that are unique to humans.

Every species has unique traits about them. It's kind of what makes them a seperate species....
Some run really fast. Others fly very high. We are very smart.

Having said that, primate psychology and awareness is, at its core, pretty similar accross the spectrum.
The other great apes, for example, also pass the "spot" test. That is to say, put them in front of a mirror and they instantly recognise themselves and realise they are looking at their reflection.

Cats can't do that, for example.

But I get it, you don't like focussing on the similarities, because it hurts your case.

Are their brains still evolving?

Are they, in fact, "breeding" with other species very like them to produce other species?​

Click to expand...

Evolution is an ongoing process. As long as living creatures are reproducing with variation, the evolutionary process is ongoing.

And also, that question of yours seems to reveal a common basic mistake: the idea that some things are "more evolved" then others. We humans aren't "more evolved" then bonobo's or chimps. The idea is nonsensical, because it assumes evolution to having a goal and / or being some kind of ladder. Which is not the case at all.

I mean how long have humans been around.

Click to expand...

Homo Sapiens roams this planet since a few hundred thousand years at most.

From that lost relative some say they bred from somehow.

Click to expand...

No idea what this is supposed to mean. Probably yet another strawman or basic mistake.

YoursTrue said:

Well, bonobos aren't on the verge of killing themselves environmentally. Only humans, with their supposedly evolved brains, are.

Click to expand...

So? Are you trying to build an argument that states bonobo's are smarter then humans?

No clue what your point is or what you think it implies.

YoursTrue said:

Yet you still have not told me why you keep saying I am calling 'my' God a liar. Please do try to back up your claim there, thank you.

Click to expand...

It's really simple.

ALL the evidence of the world points to a universe that naturally developed through physics and chemstry for some 13.7 billion years. Upto the point where we are today, with life that naturally evolved from very simple beginnings.

If you wish to believe in a creationist history of let's say some god creating everything just 6000 years ago and creating humans as-is from scratch without an evolutionary ancestry shared with the other living things and having flooded the entire world and reduced world population of EVERYTHING to just a few individuals.....


If that actually occured THEN it must necessarily follow that this god went out of his way to make the entire universe and everything in it look AS IF the stuff he did NEVER happened. It means this god went out of his way to make it LOOK as if humans evolved naturally from simple beginnings, to make it LOOK as if the world was NEVER flooded, to make it LOOK as if world population was never reduced to only a handfull of individuals, to make it LOOK as if the world, and the universe, is FAR FAR FAR older then it actually is.

When you do X and then go out of your way to cover up your tracks AND literally plant evidence to make it LOOK as if something completely different happened instead - that's called being deceptive. It's straight up lying.

So, if you wish to hold to your creationistic views AND are honest about the evidence of reality - you necessarily have to believe that your god is a deceptive lying god.

Off course, if you are not going to be honest about the evidence of reality and instead just ignore it, then you can just pretend as if the universe agrees with your creationist story. But off course at that point, you're just lying to yourself.

So however way you wish to do this... IF you are going to have creationist views AND you actually have access to the world's current scientific knowledge, lies and dishonesty ARE necessarily going to be a part of your worldview. There's no escaping it.

So either you have to assume that your god is lying, or you are going to have to lie to yourself.

YoursTrue said:

So, in other words, you believe and maintain the thought that the universe is not only ever-expanding, but there is no stopping point where there is no universe, is that right? (And, of course, you also must maintain that it came about by natural circumstance, somehow but not exactly like evolution, by itself without a superior intelligence designing it, is that also correct about your idea?)
To review, do I understand your take on this correctly -- namely that the universe has no end to it?

Click to expand...

It sure is hard to wrap one's mind around.

Perhaps look at it this way.... space = a property of the universe.
So any "where" you can possibly point at, is going to be a point IN the universe.

Sure, you could conceptually talk about the "edge" of the expanding universe. But it's hard to make it meaningfull. Because what is "beyond" this "edge"? Well.... the same thing that you'll find "north of the north pole". The very notion of it, doesn't even make sense.

There is no "there" there. There's no space. There's no "place" or "beyond" the edge.

I find it baffling as well. But that's the way that I can half logically think about it.... By realising that any "where" one can point to, is going to be IN the universe. Because there is no "there" beyond it. Just like there is no "when" in atemporal conditions. "there" is a point in space.

The universe is also expanding faster then the speed of light btw. So even if you could travel at max physical speeds, you'll never reach the "edge" anyway - it will in fact move faster away from you then you would be able to get there.

YoursTrue said:

Although that's interesting, and I"ll surely look that up, in that sense they are still not like human beings, who do or do not have to wear and make clothing for themselves.

Click to expand...

And what exactly do you think you can conclude from the fact that crabs don't do some of the things that humans do?

YoursTrue said:

A relatively late invention of man, you say.
Yet no other organism/lifeform or being has invented clothing.

Click to expand...

So?
Humans don't create spider webs.

Everyone comes out of the womb naked, without clothing. Why do you think the reason is that most human populations wear clothing, even in warmer climates now?

Click to expand...

Protection and social status.

Hermit crabs do these things (molt) in order to live, I am supposing. I briefly looked up hermit crabs. I couldn't yet find all about their births, but they do shed shells as they grow. Humans, on the other hand, are sometimes arrested if they go naked in certain populated areas. Plus, human babies don't look for their own clothes.

Click to expand...

Human babies don't do anything besides sleeping, eating, pooping and crying.

YoursTrue said:

One cannot believe in evolution as currently explained and the Bible at the same time.

Click to expand...

The Pope, along with the rest of the vatican and by extension about a billion catholics (assuming they follow the official stance of the vatican), seem to have missed that memo.

Perhaps you should go tell them that they are wrong.

Here's something more about evolution: findings appear to refute speculations by some scientists that Neanderthals and humans interbred in more recent times. Now isn't that interesting? Really? Neanderthal: 99.5 Percent Human

Click to expand...

It's kind of hard, off course, to unravel exactly what happened (and what didn't) concerning species that have been extinct for so long.

What's your point?

YoursTrue said:

About uniqueness. Again. Why don't you tell me that the ability of humans and not gorillas to make and look through microscopes is not unique to humans. OK? Also clothing. Why don't you tell me that the ability to teach others about sewing machines and needle and thread, etc., is not unique to humans? (Let's not forget about reading and writing.)

Click to expand...

Tool building, is not unique to humans.
Some species just build more sophisticated tools then others.
With humans obviously taking the cake.

But it's toolbuilding nonetheless.

YoursTrue said:

By the way, it seems that ocean fossils were found in the tops of some mountains

Click to expand...

And of course many wonder, how can that be so?

Click to expand...

Especially those who are scientifically challenged and/or illiterate.

YoursTrue said:

Meantime archaeological evidence is being discovered leading many to conclude it verifies what the Bible says.

Click to expand...

"many" being those people that already believed it dogmatically and who feel the need to be selective in what evidence they'll accept, based on "whatever fits the narrative I already believe".

It's impossible to be honest about the science and claim it agrees with the bible.
In order to say such, you're either going to have to lie about the science, or you're going to have to lie about the bible.

JasAnMa said:

Just because they make things happen does not mean they bring order from chaos...

Click to expand...

Except that they do. All the time.
A chaotic cloud of matter in space will turn into ordered spheres through gravity, for example.

When a plate near the ocean drops it causes a tsunami that forces anything in it's way... Out of the way. It made a lot happen but it didn't bring order. The laws themselves cant bring about order. I'm not sure how anythingi said is ignoring the forces of nature...I actually mentioned that they were forces.

Click to expand...

I think this will be a good time for you define what you mean by "order" and "chaos".

JasAnMa said:

1: An example that any law of nature creates order from chaos.

Click to expand...

Gravity will create ordered spheres of matter out of chaotic clouds of matter.

2: all things move toward entropy and away from order. Entropy can be brought toward order only when the right information is added.

Click to expand...

Go out during the day, look up.
See that giant ball of nuclear infurnus in the sky? It's called "the sun" and it feeds the energy with workable energy 24/7.

It's how a seed can grow into a plant.

Your entropy argument is bogus and exposes an ignorance on thermodynamics and applicability thereof.

JasAnMa said:

They either had a beginning, or they are eternal. If they had a beginning it's hard to imagine they came about on their own. They are forces that produce observable effects but they have no mind or will. Without the presence of a Creator they were made by a random force and thus would be difficult to explain how a random force could create guiding forces. If you take the position it wasn't random, then it was guided. It's also hard to explain how a guiding force formed other guiding forces because that argument goes backwards indefinitely. Now if you believe the universe is eternal that's a difficult argument as well since infinity appears to be used in mathematics but applies no where else.

Click to expand...

You are assuming that time is infinite here. When you say 'eternal', you seem to think that requires an inifnite regress. But what if time itself is finite?

And, what is the problem with the universe existing for an infinite time? That infinity is mathematical? Doesn't that alone show the possibility is consistent? It is also possible that space is infinite, by the way. We just don't know.

Next, you are assuming that 'forces' have to either be 'random' or 'guided'. Since the latter seems to assume your nclusion (that there is an intelligence involved), that is a dichotomy you need to establish.

But even more, you neglect to deal with the fact that all causes are internal to the universe. So to talk about the cause of the universe is, itself, problematic.

JasAnMa said:

1: An example that any law of nature creates order from chaos.

Click to expand...

Most of them do. Gravity is the most obvious example, though.

2: all things move toward entropy and away from order. Entropy can be brought toward order only when the right information is added.

Click to expand...

Nope. For example, if the temperature falls, liquid water will freeze. That means it goes from the (unordered) liquid to the (ordered) solid with no information input. This is an example of the electromagnetic force producing order.

Your understanding of the second law of thermodynamics is seriously flawed. As a check, can you state it precisely without using the words 'order, random, disorder, entropy' or related words? If you really understood it, this would be trivial.

JasAnMa said:

Just because they make things happen does not mean they bring order from chaos... When a plate near the ocean drops it causes a tsunami that forces anything in it's way... Out of the way. It made a lot happen but it didn't bring order. The laws themselves cant bring about order. I'm not sure how anythingi said is ignoring the forces of nature...I actually mentioned that they were forces.

Click to expand...

We see order spontaneously formed all the time from the application of natural laws (no human intervention). Water freezing to make ice is an increase of order. The formation of waves on the surface of water is order out of randomness. The collection *and sorting* or rocks by gravity is order coming out of randomness.

My guess is that you have little understanding of the forces of nature, of thermodynamics, or of how the universe actually operates.