How do you define evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

I have read as much as I can about the theory. Please explain how I am wrong. I no longer go along with the theory of Darwin. I do understand that fossils are used by scientists as evidence (of evolution), but ..I no longer believe that God was not involved in the power of genetic transfer. So thanks for conversation. Maybe someday when I have more time we can discuss the various socalled branches of the tree.

The problem is that you are now using an argument from ignorance. You can see that life evolved, hopefully, but you are still demoting God by making him your servant. An argument of I don't understand therefore God did it is as poor of an argument as I don't understand therefore pixies. God would be much more powerful if he could set it all in motion and then just sit back and watch his plan come to fruition.

 

[YoursTrue]

1. 99.9999% of species that ever existed, left no fossils behind. Fossils are rare.

2. If all fossils would disappear tomorrow, common ancestry of species would still be a genetic fact

So then

No, we don't. We might use different words, but we'll say the same thing.




So really, what you said here is the equivalent of "And IF I'm arguing a strawman, then... oh well...have a nice day"

You like, literally don't care that you are simply wrong about the theory you insist on arguing against, do you?

Evolution is like morphing. There's no ifs, ands, and buts, or strawmen arguing. It's morphing from ostensibly one physical form to another. No quibble about it. Anyway, yes, have a nice day.

 

[YoursTrue]

I no longer believe that God was not involved in the power of genetic transfer

What does that mean and how can you demonstrate it?

One reason is that as I keep hearing the arguments about the validity of the evolution theory, it is making less and less sense. Anyway, yes, have a nice day, take that into consideration. I have essentially finished my examination of the conjecture about life coming about as we see it in living forms by means of evolution per Darwin and his adherents. I have learned a lot from those promoting the theory, thank you. And yes, have a nice day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then

Evolution is like morphing. There's no ifs, ands, and buts, or strawmen arguing. It's morphing from ostensibly one physical form to another. No quibble about it. Anyway, yes, have a nice day.

No it is not morphing. It is not magic. There is no claim that dogs magically morph into cats. That is just your limited understanding and bias driving that absurd claim.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

One reason is that as I keep hearing the arguments about the validity of the evolution theory, it is making less and less sense. Anyway, yes, have a nice day, take that into consideration. I have essentially finished my examination of the conjecture about life coming about as we see it in living forms by means of evolution per Darwin and his adherents. I have learned a lot from those promoting the theory, thank you. And yes, have a nice day.

I long ago realized that for you, no amount of evidence and reason would be sufficient to bring understanding. You have a nice day from me too.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have read as much as I can about the theory.

Did you? Did you really? And did you also remember any of it?
I find it kind of hard to believe, considering how many times I had to point the simple basic fact to you that in evolution, there's no such thing as cats producing dogs or "one kind of animal" involving into a "completely different kind of animal" - which is something you consistently INSIST on being wrong about.


Anyone with even only minor understanding of the process of evolution, wouldn't make such rookie mistakes.
So excuse me while I don't take your claim terribly seriously.

Maybe someday when I have more time we can discuss the various socalled branches of the tree.

What would that accomplish?
Until you stop refusing to learn the basics, there really is no point in trying to run before you can walk.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is like morphing

No.

There's no ifs, ands, and buts, or strawmen arguing. It's morphing from ostensibly one physical form to another. No quibble about it. Anyway, yes, have a nice day.

Repeating it won't make it correct.

 

[SkepticThinker]

One reason is that as I keep hearing the arguments about the validity of the evolution theory, it is making less and less sense. Anyway, yes, have a nice day, take that into consideration. I have essentially finished my examination of the conjecture about life coming about as we see it in living forms by means of evolution per Darwin and his adherents. I have learned a lot from those promoting the theory, thank you. And yes, have a nice day.

I asked what you meant by "I no longer believe that God was not involved in the power of genetic transfer, " and how you've demonstrated it.
This post does not answer my question.
Again.

Here's another question you won't answer ...

What "arguments about the validity of the evolution theory" do you "keep hearing," from whom and from where? And why do you look for scientific information on creationist web sites rather than on academic websites, where you should be looking?


I'm sorry but it doesn't appear you've attempted to learn anything, given that you've repeated the same questions over and over since you started these threads. Someone who was taking in and learning new information wouldn't need to do that.

 

[gnostic]

So then

Evolution is like morphing. There's no ifs, ands, and buts, or strawmen arguing. It's morphing from ostensibly one physical form to another. No quibble about it.

Man!

You really don’t know just how absurd and ignorant you are sounding.

I am not a biologist, and my studies of biology (in classroom environments) are limited to Year 9 high school and a bit of 1st year college about types of wood that might be used in construction (civil engineering course), eg properties of woods, strengths and weaknesses, seasoned or unseasoned timbers etc, and study of types of soils.

In high school during the 1980s (Year 9), a bit about basic genetics was cover, but not Evolution. If I chosen biology route instead of physics route, they may have taught some Evolution in Year 11 & Year 12 biology.

I didn’t learn about Evolution until 2003 and onward, during my free times.

But even with my limited education in biology, I can see the errors in your claim, and they ridiculously absurd.

You seemed incapable of being educated, and worse of all, you refused to learn from your mistakes.

There are no morphing in Evolution.

Where did you get such absurdity?

Morphing is like Genesis 2:7, where God created man from dust from the ground.

It is not possible for such changes to occur, where lifeless dust can instantly morph into a living adult human male. That’s unnatural, and could never happen in nature.

 

[YoursTrue]

Man!

You really don’t know just how absurd and ignorant you are sounding.

I am not a biologist, and my studies of biology (in classroom environments) are limited to Year 9 high school and a bit of 1st year college about types of wood that might be used in construction (civil engineering course), eg properties of woods, strengths and weaknesses, seasoned or unseasoned timbers etc, and study of types of soils.

In high school during the 1980s (Year 9), a bit about basic genetics was cover, but not Evolution. If I chosen biology route instead of physics route, they may have taught some Evolution in Year 11 & Year 12 biology.

I didn’t learn about Evolution until 2003 and onward, during my free times.

But even with my limited education in biology, I can see the errors in your claim, and they ridiculously absurd.

You seemed incapable of being educated, and worse of all, you refused to learn from your mistakes.

There are no morphing in Evolution.

Where did you get such absurdity?

Morphing is like Genesis 2:7, where God created man from dust from the ground.

It is not possible for such changes to occur, where lifeless dust can instantly morph into a living adult human male. That’s unnatural, and could never happen in nature.

#1 - I don't know exactly what everything means in the Bible. It has been posited that everything here that seems to have come alive somehow by fascinating chemical hits may have come from -- stardust.
#2 - I don't use the word morphing as you are surmising. I am using the morph term as if from one "Unknown Common Ancestor" other distinct ape-forms are said to have morphed. OK, evolved.

 

[YoursTrue]

No.




Repeating it won't make it correct.

I think evolution is like morphing. One form to another. With provisions, of course. If you don't agree with me, ok, so be it. You don't agree.

 

[gnostic]

#1 - I don't know exactly what everything means in the Bible. It has been posited that everything here that seems to have come alive somehow by fascinating chemical hits may have come from -- stardust.

Everything may have come ancient stars, star dust, but not in the bloody ways you think.

Dust don’t just magically transform into living things, especially a fully grown adult human male, like Adam.

Star dust are raw materials that have undergone different types of Nucleosynthesis, before going through chemical reactions.

Nucleosynthesis are how stars form lighter elements into heavier elements in the periodic table, and there are numbers of different types of Nucleosynthesis that can occur during main sequence stage of the stars, and post-main sequence stages (examples of post-stages: red giant to white dwarf stage, neutron star stage, supernova stage and blackhole stage).

There are actually lot more different types of Nucleosynthesis, and it is not possible for to explain each one’s to you, without writing books, but the bottom line for every types of Nucleosynthesis, are lighter elements to form into heavier elements through nuclear fusion of hydrogen to any from helium to iron.

To understand Nucleosynthesis of stars (or Stellar Nucleosynthesis and Supernova Nucleosynthesis), you will at least need some basic understanding of nuclear physics, especially on NUCLEAR FUSION. Because that’s what going to take to understand astrophysics and cosmology of our own Solar System.

These Nucleosynthesis are not the normal chemical reactions that we see that formed into myriad of chemical molecules and chemical compounds.

Then there are biochemical reactions, that are even more complex, which formed organic compounds, especially cells.

It all took billions of years to reach this stage to form our Solar System, our Earth, a billion year after to form even the simplest of life form: species of Bacteria and species of Archaea. More complex organisms only started forming through the last 600 million years.

So the only organisms dominant for the first 3 billion years were bacteria and archaea, where NO plants, fungi, invertebrate & vertebrate animals existed during these stage.

As I said, animals only started appearing fossil records in the last 600 million years.

My points are that you are hopelessly clueless to even basic biology, bringing up star dust without understanding astrophysics of star life cycle, from star formation to the end of star, you are only compounding your ignorance.

Have you even heard of Nucleosynthesis before?

If you haven’t, then are only make everything more complicated for yourself, and making false or misleading claims about something that you don’t understand.

Star dust cannot simply magically make human being, all fully grown.

The evidence support all Homo species, from the Homo habilis to the current subspecies of Homo sapiens - Homo sapiens sapiens - were reproduced through sexual process, and not magically morphing dust to man like in Genesis 2:7.

Bringing up star dust don’t actually your argument, it's only demonstrated once again, you don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think evolution is like morphing. One form to another. With provisions, of course. If you don't agree with me, ok, so be it. You don't agree.

It isn't just a matter of disagreement. It is matter that you clearly do not understand evolution if you think it is one species morphing into another.

If you do not understand something, do you consider that a sound basis to dismiss it or reject it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

#1 - I don't know exactly what everything means in the Bible. It has been posited that everything here that seems to have come alive somehow by fascinating chemical hits may have come from -- stardust.
#2 - I don't use the word morphing as you are surmising. I am using the morph term as if from one "Unknown Common Ancestor" other distinct ape-forms are said to have morphed. OK, evolved.

Another issue is that your use of terminology is very confusing. If you say morphed, it means a certain phenomenon that is not described or predicted by evolution and gives the impression that you do not understand. Using accepted terminology to describe the science is key to communicating.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So then

Evolution is like morphing. There's no ifs, ands, and buts, or strawmen arguing. It's morphing from ostensibly one physical form to another. No quibble about it. Anyway, yes, have a nice day.

Morphing implies that a specific individual organism changed into another type of organism. It is still the same organism with a different form. That is not what the theory of evolution is describing at all.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think evolution is like morphing. One form to another.

You keep repeating this mistake. We keep correcting it.

With provisions, of course. If you don't agree with me, ok, so be it. You don't agree.

The science doesn't agree with you.
Your opinions don't trump facts.

 

[night912]

I think evolution is like morphing. One form to another. With provisions, of course. If you don't agree with me, ok, so be it. You don't agree.

If that's really what you think, then why did you object when i presented you with the tadpole and frog example? A tadpole morphed into a frog, one form morphing into another form. Clearly, a tadpole is not the same form as a frog.

 

[gnostic]

One reason is that as I keep hearing the arguments about the validity of the evolution theory, it is making less and less sense.

I am quite sure you have heard of this line being before, when someone is breaking off a relationship with another:

"It's not you, it me..." ​

Well, YOU cannot use this line.

The problem is definitely YOU.

The reason why Evolution don't make sense to you, is because you have never taken time to understand Evolution.

I don't know you, so I don't know what you were taught in schools and colleges, I don't know what your sources from where you get all misinformed claims you have made at RF, but clearly you weren't good at biology.

And that's coming from person who didn't study biology beyond Year 9 high school level (that's the Australian system, and when I did the other years, I had leaning more in the physics subject). I learned Evolution in my own free time, from biology textbook borrowed from my cousin.

Now if I can learn some basic on Evolution at my age, so you should be capable to learn something new or you should be able to correct your past errors.

Even though I am no biologist, even I can see your errors and your misunderstanding, like this recent claim about "morphing".

Morphing is never terminology used in the theory of Evolution, and I am not only the one who pointed out your error, and yet you keep using this term, hence already compounding all the mistakes you have already made.

How about recognising that morph isn't the right word to use, learn from your mistake?

There are better educated people in biology, not only better than you, also better than me. Instead of making excuses and thinking your are superior, trying learning the basics.

Because I don't understand why you and other creationists keep insisting Evolution is wrong, when none of you actually understand the mechanisms for biological changes.

 

[rational experiences]

Healing. Allowance of change in bio life.

Humans think about its inheritance. And said I believe life owns miracles.

Yet if you ponder life. All natural created highest states had actually supported our presence. Before us all form exusted.

As science does not add onto creation. You search deep within form to find variations to energy.

Which is not adding.

Science said a humans bad choice took life into a time shift. Where he quotes water by flooding heavens became a scientific created saviour.

As previous he said ice was an earth saviour. Wandering star asteroid gas returned saviour

To reason why is also a topic. Why reason earth saviours?

Men would quote as I heard old man's atmospheric pre satanic pyramid science theme. Had combusted all life on earth.

I saw all visions...images of past seen and heard men explaining voice recorded statements.

Even told you they had.

Men hence said new science knew what pyramid science had caused before. So was it any wonder new Egyptian science nuclear attacked life again? The civilization indian..Mayan...Egyptian.

Similar looking humanity by pictographs.

Cellular health depends in radiation removal which involved water mass ground returning. Pressure changes affecting cellular presence o.....oxygenation in the water for blood.

Of course we knew we were healing. Why else did we see the event involving a human father and human mother in imagery?

If a human says dinosaurs died after ice age occurrence we came direct out of the eternal spirit as the atmospheric mass had cooled.

If our eternal spirit life became with water then when water gets removed off the ground removed we would in part cell life form disappear as the proof we came from spirit.

As water mass is first mass of water.

As life is human conceived by sex as two the exact same life condition would occur to babies. And it does.

Animals affected the same because we had come direct from spirit.

One mass if a science theist said one form evolved past mass yet within mass makes no sense.

 

[rational experiences]

If that's really what you think, then why did you object when i presented you with the tadpole and frog example? A tadpole morphed into a frog, one form morphing into another form. Clearly, a tadpole is not the same form as a frog.

Nor is a man's sperm like a human baby.