Information in the Genome

[gnostic]

Evolution supposes that everything evolved without proof that's possible, and the way that's pushed is to appeal to time making anything possible by chance.

How many times do creationists, including yourself, needs reminding that sciences require evidence to test their theories or new hypotheses, not proofs.

Evidence are physical, in the case with Evolution, for examples, morphological comparisons between species, genetic test results such as DNA or RNA and DNA comparison, fossil discoveries and records, the dating techniques (radiometric dating of fossils, minerals or rocks that were found around or near the fossils), etc, these are all evidence and data collected from samples and testings. They are all evidence of Evolution; THEY ARE NOT PROOFS of Evolution.

Proofs are merely "logical models" or "logical statements", like mathematical equations. Proofs are often expressed in mathematical form, like equations, formulas, variables, constants and numbers. And while mathematical equations are useful tools in sciences (as well as technology and engineering), especially in physics, equations are themselves, not evidence.

Proofs are logical tools, abstract and conceptual, but they are not the same as physical evidence.

Evidence are either natural phenomena or are samples of (or parts of) natural phenomena. And if these evidence are physical, then they must have observable physical characteristic that could be detected (or observed) and can be quantitatively measured in some ways.

Quantities and measurements are useful "observed" data in any sciences, and they are often considered part of the evidence.

For instances, in forensic science during homicide investigation, the forensic team will gather any physical evidence and trace evidence they can find at the scene, while medical examiner will examine the body itself, also doing various tests to find out that person die. They examine, they test, they will compare and match evidence. Often the testings involved measurements, which they will record in their respective reports.

But back to Evolution.

Evidence are the only ways to test if the theory of Evolution is correct and true.

And the only way to refute or debunk Evolution, are again with physical evidence (plus data), not with mathematical equations (proofs).

I am not a biologist, but there are decades of evidence that support Evolution, not just in fossil records, but through the genome tests of extant species.

And not just Natural Selection; evidence that support other evolutionary mechanisms like Genetic Drift, Mutations and Gene Flow.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It doesn't explain how the impossible, (life from non life) happens.

How have you determined that this is "impossible"?

Its used in evolution theory like a smoke screen to cover the gaps they can't fill.

No. Evolution demonstrably takes time to unfold.
That's kind of the thing with gradual change over generations.... You require many generations for the micro-changes to accumulate so that they can build up into large changes.

The passing of many generations just happens to take time.

You may not like that, for some strange reason, but it is what it is.

Why you think that ranting about the time it takes to unfold as if it can be used as an argument against the very theory which itself makes clear and explains why it takes quite some time, is very bizar...


Do you also argue against the process of fingernails growing, because it take forever to have them grow to 1m in length?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We don't know near as much as we are told we do. Lots of smoke and mirrors fools the general population.

We do know ridiculous amounts more then you are obviously willing to acknowledge.
In fact, you are so hellbend against acknowledging it that you insist on doubling down on your strawman and misrepresentations of biology, even after those mistakes are pointed out to you.

How do you think that makes you look to the rest of us?
Do you think it helps your case to double down on being ignorant?