The creator did it.

[sooda]

To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.

If you think its false, do you believe in creation science?

 

[Polymath257]

To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.

Yes, the evidence *does* support increased information in the DNA. One of the primary ways such information increase happens is when genes duplicate and then independently mutate. This process has produced whole families of proteins, from the globins (hemoglobin, myoglobin, and others), the serine proteases (each of which cleave a protein, but each at different sites while using a very similar method for doing the cleavage.

How much biology have you actually studied? How much biochemistry? if you did, you would realize just how *little* new information is required to go from fish to humans.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA.

The evidence does support this. We have examples of this even in humans. Lactase persistence is new information that allows some individuals to digest lactose from milk into their adult lives giving them the ability to take an optimized advantage of a food source.

Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory.

The theory of evolution is the most well supported theory in science with over 200 years worth of evidence accumulated even prior to the formalized version that Darwin proposed. Darwin did not invent evolution, he just came up with the best theory to explain it. His most important contribution was the identification of a mechanism that drives the process--natural selection (non-random mechanism).

Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.

Theories do not become laws in science. Theories and laws are two different categories of scientific statement. A law is a description of a phenomenon, while a theory--the highest level in science--is an explanation for observation.

I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.

Neither you nor Rapture Era have a grasp of the science, theory or the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. Your concept of the theory of evolution is an example, because it is flaw on the face of it. The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life and even your view of abiogenesis is false, since none of those hypotheses state that life came from nothing. We have a very good idea of the stages of life that evolved from the first living things until now. Either you are completely ignorant of biology and related sciences or you are in complete denial of what those sciences report.

Obviously, you are sticking around to see what happens on this thread. You should drop your bias, open your mind and stick around. The people you are claiming do not know anything, know a lot and you could learn from them and still maintain your belief in God. The science of evolution is not claiming anything about God or saying that you cannot believe in Him.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I understand this! Ok look, lets set origins aside for the moment. Life changing over time. You don't concern yourself with the materials for life beginnings but you do concern yourself with what happens after that right? So if whatever this "life" was millions and billions of years ago, what directed it to do or be anything at all?

Natural selection.

Please explain to me at which point you guys jump in and say, this is where evolution begins?

As soon as their were biological entities with heritable genetic variation capable of reproduction.

What was creature and what was the instructions for it to do anything but die?

I do not understand this question. It does not make sense. The first organisms were single-celled, prokaryotic microbes. It would have had genes for more than just dying even if there was no variation in the population for natural selection to act on and evolution to take place.

How did it reproduce?

Cellular or binary fission. A form of asexual reproduction.

How did it change from one animal to another?

It did not. It was not magic. Change of that type occurs at the level of the population and not with individual members of a species.

What intelligence was involved in producing a female, and how did that come about? Oh wait! I used the word intelligence, sorry.

There is no evidence or reason to consider that any intelligence was involved in the evolution of gender. Or any other aspect of evolution either.

Let me rephrase, what process do you hold to that brought into existence the female?

Why do you think that the first species were composed of all males? I thought you creationists did not go for that. The first living things were neither male nor female and reproduced asexually--a well known form of reproduction in bacteria and many other living things--insects, copperheads, worms, hydras and many more. Even plants can propagate vegetatively. One of the oldest living organism--approximately 80,000 years old--is a grove of aspen trees that has essentially reproduced clones of itself through vegetative propagation. Bacteria also reproduce by a process called conjugation that is similar to sexual reproduction that involves the sharing of genes between two individual bacteria. This is similar to sexual reproduction.

The complexity of reproduction is screams design, not some malfunction junction directionless process known as evolution.

Only to those that are ignorant of evolution and biology in general. Evolution goes where natural selection takes it. Complexity is not specified by the theory of evolution, but is a consequence of the process of evolution. There is no reason to think that only intelligence could produce complexity. Snowflakes are complex and there is no intelligence required for that complexity. Your's is an argument from ignorance.

What was the evolutionary function of knowing it needed to do anything?

Another question that does not make sense. These first living things would not have known they needed to do anything. The evolution that took place with their populations was a natural process that was driven by natural selection. Genetic variation in the populations due largely from mutations to the genes would have been selected by the natural environmental conditions. If there were changes in those conditions, populations with the genes to address those changes would be naturally favored and thus reproduce. This would not require that the ancestral populations go extinct either. Conditions did not have to change across an entire range of the ancestral population leading to its extinction, but could have just been in a portion of the range.

You see the nonsense in all of this evolutionary upward movement?

What do you mean? What is evolutionary upward movement? Again, this is not making much sense.

And lastly, How is it at all possible for one living thing to change (evolve) its structure, internal organs including the brain, its chemistry, male and female and it's reproduction capabilities into a different animal?

It is not possible and not what the theory explains or what occurs in nature. Populations evolve, not individuals morphing into different species like cartoon characters.

You must have a fully functioning male and female to reproduce![/QUOTE]Sure. In mammals. But not in bacteria, many plants and many animals. Have you not read about asexual reproduction, binary fission, parthenogenesis, arrhenotoky, deuterotoky and other forms of reproduction?

Otherwise its impossible!

Not at all. It happens in the natural world all the time. Male bees are the offspring of unfertilized eggs, thus reproduced without male input at all. I think you will find that your 'impossible' is actually that you do not know a lot about the subject of biology.

So I'd be interested in how your critical thinking mind works through these steps of evolving and reproduction.

I hope you are. From the state of your knowledge, based on what I have read so far, you would be well served to read and learn here.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, Rapture Era.

Let me give you example, and asked you some questions. Perhaps, this example will help you understand that it not necessary to understand the origin with current experiences.

One of the earliest tools made and used by man were knives and hand axes.

We still use knives today, to cut things, like food for instance.

I know that manufacturers of knives, are all operated by machines to mass produce particular knives for different uses, for home and work. But people used to make these tools by hand.

The blades are more often made of alloy steel.

The earliest primitive knives were made of stones or flints, during the Palaeolithic period (so before 10 or 11,000 BCE).

My questions are:

1. Do knife makers or people who work in knife-making factories needs to learn how to make knives from stone or flint?
2. Do people who use knives in their daily life, like at home or at work (eg butchers, fishermen or fishmongers, those in the restaurant businesses, etc) required to know Palaeolithic knives were made?

If no to both questions, then you should know that it is not relevant today for the average users of knives or makers of knives, to know and learn the history of how earliest knives were made.

The people who would know about Palaeolithic knives are archaeologists and anthropologists.

Likewise, biology students are required to learn biology, but not about the origin of life. They don’t need to know how the first proteins, first RNA or DNA, first cell form.

Evolution is about life - that already exist - change over time, like speciation.

Evolution required life to have already existed, that have the capacity to pass genetic traits to the next generations.

Do you understand, RE?

Sure it is important to learn everything we can possibly can, including the origin of life, but for most biology courses, students don’t need to learn how life came to be.

Currently, the study of abiogenesis are reserved for researchers only, not available to students in most biology courses.

I like your analogy. It is a far wider truth than what you have alluded to here. In thinking about it another example occurred to me. An ecologist does not need to know about reproduction beyond that it happens, but the ecologist could still study and learn about the interactions of an environment and the species that exist in it and draw valid conclusions about those interactions.

Another would be much closer to many of us and perhaps--like your analogy--much more easily related. One does not need to know how a train, a car, a motorcycle or even a bicycle works in order to use them to go from A to B. I could not design or build a car from just a pile of car parts and I have driven many, many miles.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.

How does one that even know what a theory is have a firmer grasp on the sciences than those that do?

Though there is no official standing in the sciences if anything theories outrank laws. Laws are rather old school where someone simply has an observation of what occurs under specific conditions. Theories are the same sort of observations with an explanation. An observation with an explanation , and that is testable besides definitely is higher on the totem pole than just an observation.

 

[Bear Wild]

To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.

The most recent evidence of DNA supports evolution even greater than previous DNA evidence does. What it shows is how much time it took for DNA to develop some degree of complexity but once it did the rate of variations increased as would be expected by evolution theory. In the argument for the Cambrian "explosion" the data supports evolution as described in "Rates of Phenotypic and Genomic Evolution during the Cambrian Explosion" by Michael S.Y. Lee, Julien Soubrier and Gregory D. Edgecombe published in Current Biology September 12, 2013. The development of the Hox genes, grailed genes, DLL genes are examples of genes that allowed for more complex body part development and thus allowed for the large diversification along with environmental changes during this time. Considering the extensive length of time for these changes to occur with the selective advantage it is easy to see how changes in the environment and genetic changes would work in harmony to create significant variation that would allow for what is seen in the fossil record. As for more complex variations we can see the increasing complexity in both regulatory genes and epigenetic differences that would accelerate the variation leading to the complex forms of organisms adapting to vastly different niches in the environment. The simple statement of multi-cell to fish to ape to human only shows a lack of understanding of genetics and fossil evidence along with the length of time that occurred. The evidence is there, although the concepts may be difficult to understand, and if you take the time to learn what we know and not just reactive opinion then the answers can be explained.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Let me try this a different way. You believe you are a product of evolution regardless of how it got started. Matter exploded from the "Big Bang" all over the universe. Somehow our planet through all of this chaos ended up in the right place at the right time. And somehow over enormous amounts of time all of a sudden life appears (No one knows how, no one knows why) and over bazillions of years, somehow, formed into something like a cell. How does evolution account for the information in the cell? Vast amounts of information. Information is intelligence and design. Information does not come about from nothing, that's a scientific fact. Matter has no intelligence, so consequently, if you are a product of meaningless, directionless, purposeless, unintelligent and design-less matter, "like yourself" fits perfectly. It's not an insult, its who you are and you admit it openly, whats the problem?

Trial and error? How does that work exactly?

"Fundamental forces"? What are those essential forces exactly?
"Probabilities in nature"? The word "Probabilities" means (chances, odds) you realize that right.
"is what dictates the direction and the design of all life." The word "dictates" means (orders, commands), you realize that right?
"direction and the design of all life." The word "direction" means (route or path), you realize that right?
And lastly, the forbidden words of any evolutionist is "design" of life.
Sounds to me like you are describing the intelligent design of creation!

Okay, whatever.

For the record, I don't consider myself purposeless, directionless, unintelligent, or designed by a God. Matter itself is certainly unintelligent and not designed, unless you can demonstrate that it is. Matter is not sentient, and has no intrinsic purpose. The composition, nature, and behavior of matter is directed/controlled/guided/limited by the four fundamental forces in physics, and the laws of Probability. Despite all of your silly superlatives, the physical reality, "like yourself", is still composed of matter and must obey the laws of physics. How this matter transforms itself into a cell, a multicell, an organ, a system, and an organism, will require many baby steps to understand. Instead of exploiting the things we don't know in science, maybe you could advance the things that we do know in science? Or, is "God did it all" the limit of your science investigation? Is this how you, and others "like yourself" want to limit our young inquiry minds, by having them believe that only a God could have caused the BB? That only a God could have created the Universe? That only a God could have created the earth and all life on it? You, and others "like yourself" want to also instil fear and paranoia in these impressionable young minds, by telling them that God will always be watching over them, even after they're dead. But, if they are obedient, servile, and blindly worship God as their master, "like yourself", that they will receive an everlasting life of bliss and happiness as their reward. And, that this is all true, because "the Bible tells me so". There is a word that describes this level of insecurity and ignorance.

Your straw man version of the BB, origin of life, and Evolution is just an argument from incredulity. It is a fallacy that tries to challenge our common sense. Except, that no one with more than two working brain cells, would ever believe such an insane origin story. Do you really think, that anyone thinks that the BB was just a large explosion of already formed matter, that spread out and somehow produced stars, galaxies planets, and eventually life? Is this the kind of crap you want our Institutes of Higher Learning to teach our students? Or, maybe they should teach them that, "God did it all". Class over, collect your diploma/degree in Ancient Biblical Mythology. Again, you should take baby steps first, before you post. Or, stop mindlessly parroting creationist soundbites, and start searching for at least truth in reason.

There are four fundamental forces in nature(maybe five). It is hard for me to explain what these forces do, without explaining what they are acting upon, and their energy carriers. This would require some basic understanding of particle physics. So baby steps. Suffice to say, these forces are what makes up the reality we both see today. These are the forces that holds the matter in our body together. These are the forces that keep us from flying off this spinning planet into space. These are the forces that stops us from falling through the earth. These are the forces that allow us to see, and interact with our environment. In fact these are the forces that allow you to even stand still. Without these forces, this particular Universe would not exist. Or, it would be a very different Universe indeed.

What is the probability of life forming in a lava pit, or in the ocean? What is the probability of someone in a population surviving a disease long enough to develop an immunity? What is the probability of an Earthlike planet forming at the right distance from the sun, to support the formation of life? Not only is the probability high, but it is almost impossible for an earthlike planet not to have formed. If you keep tossing a coin in the air, you might begin to see patterns of heads or tails emerging. Are these emerging patterns directed, designed, intelligent, or are they simply by chance? Never mind, it was rhetorical.

There are many people here that can help simplify your understanding of science. They can easily explain the How and Why of most natural phenomena. They can cite, interpret, and present the best evidence to objectively support their explanations. You should look at the context of how a word(s) is used, not just the word(s) itself. I'm not sure if you are purposely sending us down rabbit holes for your amusement, or just trying to avoid your burden of proof. Do you have any idea how trial and error relates to the 99.999% of all species that did not survive on this planet? Bad luck maybe? So, since you clearly know very little about science, stop referencing it in your arguments as though you do. Since you are not interested in our explanations of the science, stop asking us to keep explaining it to you. If you want to believe that all of reality was created by magic, then that is your right. But, don't use science as proof to validate your ignorance. No person who has spent most of their lives understanding WHY 2 + 2 = 4, and not equal the "spaghetti monster", would ever claim that "God did it all".

 

[gnostic]

I like your analogy.

Thank you, Dan.

Another would be much closer to many of us and perhaps--like your analogy--much more easily related. One does not need to know how a train, a car, a motorcycle or even a bicycle works in order to use them to go from A to B. I could not design or build a car from just a pile of car parts and I have driven many, many miles.

Right.

Modern knife makers do require knowledge of steel, but I have yet to hear of any of them mining iron themselves, they don’t which mine the iron come from, or how this iron form and when.

Biologists and biology students are not required to know origin of life, they are the ones pursuing in this endeavour.

Rapture Era refused to understand that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thank you, Dan.


Right.

Modern knife makers do require knowledge of steel, but I have yet to hear of any of them mining iron themselves, they don’t which mine the iron come from, or how this iron form and when.

Biologists and biology students are not required to know origin of life, they are the ones pursuing in this endeavour.

Rapture Era refused to understand that.

It is as I always think and say. If we knew all the answers there would be no reason to look. Which is why we do look. Creationists already believe they know them all and do not want others to look.

 

[ecco]

Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory.

Your above comment is completely untruthful. You may not agree with evolution, but even you must know it is absolutely backed by evidence. Not just evidence from one field, but from many.

All you are doing by making comments like the above is proving that you have no problems making untruthful statements to protect your deeply held religious views.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Let me ask you something. What is the left hook in this evolutionary hypothesis that made you believe so strongly in it? That beyond any shadow of a doubt that is absolutely true?

I don’t believe many things “beyond a shadow of a doubt” or “absolutely.” That tends to be something creationists harp on, but not so much for scientists. I believe things based on the best available evidence.

They thing about evolution is that the explanation was arrived at using the scientific method. The same scientific method that produced all the knowledge about our world that we currently hold. In other words, it produces reliable results. And not only that, but I can view these results for myself and if I have the resources available to me, I can even attempt to reproduce the results. I don’t have to take anyone’s word for it, it just have faith and believe or anything like that.

Again, the evidence of supernatural claims is smacking to in the face everywhere you look? From the cosmos to the micro we see order, design in all life forms, Eco-systems, reproduction, on and on and on.

But again, those are just claims. Where is the evidence that there is anything supernatural?

The cosmos isn’t supernatural. Design is a claim that needs to be back up with evidence. Just telling people to look at the stars and the trees isn’t evidence. You have to demonstrate that your claims are accurate.

The amount of faith you exhibit that any evolutionary process of something from nothing you admit cannot be verified (how it all started) over trillions of guwazillions of years is just mind boggling! I realize abiogenesis is a separate study from evolution. What I find fascinating, is that you blindly believe in a process (evolution) without the scientific proof of life starting to allow evolution to ever operate! Do you see the problem?

As pointed out above, acceptance of the evolutionary process does not require faith in the sense you are talking about. Demonstrable things don’t need faith to believe. That’s kind of the point in demonstrating things and I think it illustrates the difference between the scientific method and religious faith.

Evolution doesn’t say something came from nothing. Evolution explains how life diversifies over time. We know life started somehow, because it’s here. Evolution takes off from there. It’s the same way I can accept gravitational theory, without knowing how everything got here in the first place. Do you accept gravitation theory?

Of course you are, otherwise you wouldn't be so forceful and confident that supernatural creation is a lie.

Forceful and confident? How many times have I asked you to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural? I haven’t once stated “forcefully” that it doesn’t exist. Rather, I’ve asked repeatedly what evidence you have to back up your claims about it. I believe things when there is evidence to indicate I should believe in a thing.

The thing is, you are held to the same standard through science that evolution is possible without a comprehensive understanding of how it started in the first place. Your claims fall flat on its face and no one can demonstrate that in any honest and meaningful way that is is remotely possible!

I’m sorry, but you’re just wrong. See my above example about gravitational theory.

You throw out links that are full of, maybe, could have, might be, we just don't know at this point kind of language which is a pathetic attempt to abuse and prostitute the false narratives of evolution in place of true science. This causes you to step outside of true science and speculate with hypotheses and all kinds of nonsense that put you into a fantasy world outside of the very discipline you say you adhere to! It's absolutely remarkable!

As I’m sure has been pointed out to you before, scientists don’t speak in absolutes like creationists often do. They’re not “stepping outside of true science” when they do so. Scientists speak in terms of probabilities and confidence intervals rather than declarative statements, as religions tend to do. It’s called being honest.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Thank you for your honesty. I'm not try to trap you or your words. I understand many are researching this field. Now, more than any other time in history do we posses the incredible understanding in science as to the immense complexities of all life. And so far, science is not able to produce the answers for say, abiogenesis which is needed for the evolutionary process to advance into higher and diversified life forms. As I see it, science is saying quite the opposite, its saying that (so far) it is not possible from the evidence that we encounter. So wouldn't it be reasonable for any scientist to scrap the idea until the data shows otherwise? Is it not reasonable to think that if there is no beginning in a natural sense, that evolution dictates, what is the point of advancing a theory to fruition when the very foundation of it is in calamitous fail? It works this way with everything else in study of science, why not evolution?

I agree.

I'm confused, You said a moment a go that "We honestly admit that we currently do not know. There are many people researching this very field to someday provide answers." How can it be explained in detail when you don't know?

That's unfair! I agree that science moves forward, and as it does, it is constantly changing with new information. What hasn't changed, even with our super advanced technology and knowledge, is it's ability to reconcile how life started. This is of monumental importance! And I believe that the only answer is supernatural creation, it's the only one that fits the data if you look at it objectively.

My question is, how can you posit an explanation for something that hasn't been shown to exist in the first place?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey Rapture man,
I am ending my input here. I doubt they are learning from us, only mocking as Peter and Paul foretold would happen in these last days. I think I will start another thread titled "Why Believe", because all of us believe things we have no way of proving in any material way. Morality for instance,... why should we believe anything is right or wrong without a Higher Authority i.e. God. Because everything would then be arbitrary and subjective.

It's arbitrary and subjective with a "Higher Authority."

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, there is no agenda in understanding how biology works. What I said was "You don't need to inject science with evolution unless you have an agenda. Is there an agenda on how biology is presented? How does evolution fair with the scientific method and your explanation above? That's my point. Does it pass or not? If not, stop speculating and deceiving people by inferring that evolution is at all probable. Just teach what science knows, not what it doesn't know. Listen, if any evidence could be found in defense of the theory, you can be assured the evolutionary world be quick to flash it all over the planet! The problem is, its still metaphysical and not science. But everyone calls it science, why? So what is going on that this theory hasn't been trashed a long time ago? Can you think of a reason?

Evolution is the backbone of modern biology.

Evolution is a fact of life. The theory of evolution is the explanation that describes how it works.

If you think you have evidence that falsifies the theory of evolution, then you need to present it to the scientific world. There is probably a Nobel Prize waiting for you, if you did, as you'd be the first.

 

[He has Risen!]

The most recent evidence of DNA supports evolution even greater than previous DNA evidence does. What it shows is how much time it took for DNA to develop some degree of complexity but once it did the rate of variations increased as would be expected by evolution theory. In the argument for the Cambrian "explosion" the data supports evolution as described in "Rates of Phenotypic and Genomic Evolution during the Cambrian Explosion" by Michael S.Y. Lee, Julien Soubrier and Gregory D. Edgecombe published in Current Biology September 12, 2013. The development of the Hox genes, grailed genes, DLL genes are examples of genes that allowed for more complex body part development and thus allowed for the large diversification along with environmental changes during this time. Considering the extensive length of time for these changes to occur with the selective advantage it is easy to see how changes in the environment and genetic changes would work in harmony to create significant variation that would allow for what is seen in the fossil record. As for more complex variations we can see the increasing complexity in both regulatory genes and epigenetic differences that would accelerate the variation leading to the complex forms of organisms adapting to vastly different niches in the environment. The simple statement of multi-cell to fish to ape to human only shows a lack of understanding of genetics and fossil evidence along with the length of time that occurred. The evidence is there, although the concepts may be difficult to understand, and if you take the time to learn what we know and not just reactive opinion then the answers can be explained.

The 15 billion year old universe does not have enough time to produce life through the Darwinian evolutionary process.
That is the true bottom line.
Life only comes from life is what real science observes-
https://answersingenesis.org/origin-of-life/life-from-life-or-not/

 

[Polymath257]

The 15 billion year old universe does not have enough time to produce life through the Darwinian evolutionary process.

First, the 'Darwinian evolutionary process' has no relation to the beginning of life. Evolution is what happens *after* life gets going.

Second, the majority of that 15 billion years, the Earth didn't even exist. The Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. Furthermore, given the conditions of the early Earth (such as no liquid water), we are pretty confident no life existed on Earth at first. But we know life *did* exist by 3.8 billion years ago. So, if life developed on Earth, it did so in less than 700 million years.

Third, what model are you using for the development of life in order to reach the conclusion that there was not enough time? Are you limiting the possible pathways in any way?

That is the true bottom line.
Life only comes from life is what real science observes-
Answers in Genesis - Site Maintenance

Pasteur didn't consider conditions relevant to the early Earth. he dealt with conditions in a modern environment, with an oxygen atmosphere, etc. Life certainly didn't originate in an environment like the modern Earth. Everyone agrees to that.

We know life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. We know the relevant chemicals were present on the early Earth, and in abundance. We know those chemicals can, and do spontaneously assemble to form more complex structures, including being able to catalyze reactions similar to those required for life. We know this can happen fairly quickly.

Do we know every step of the process? No.

Do we know a lot more than most creationists want to admit? yes.

is it unreasonable to pursue the lines of evidence suggesting life developed by natural processes? Not at all. In fact, that is what needs to be done even if it didn't develop that way.

 

[Bear Wild]

To Most Posters on this thread,
Evolution is based on mutational progression and the ability to pass on to future progeny their DNA. What most posters here are missing is the evidence for the increase of information through mutation from a single cell to you and me. It may sound like a good theory, but the evidence does not support increasing information within the DNA. Darwinian evolution is a non-evidence based theory. Gregor Mendel (1822–84) was a true scientist whose theories have become law.
I know I posted I would not continue on this thread, but to read the non-sense attacks on Rapture Era not knowing what he is saying is evident that most people here, with the exception of Rapture Era, don't have a firm grasp on the real understanding of what it would take to evolve from nothing to something to living cells to muti-cell life to fish to ape to you.

Nonsense attacks? Ignorance of the information is not an excuse to

The 15 billion year old universe does not have enough time to produce life through the Darwinian evolutionary process.
That is the true bottom line.
Life only comes from life is what real science observes-
Life from Life...or Not?

The article you quote is not science and is so far out of date it is absurd. I gave you an article - not sure how to link yet- that is accessible and directly answers the question about how diversity developed during the Cambrian era. If you can't find it I will finally figure out how to do a link for you. This article is not from the 1800's or the early 1900's but from after 2010. So you do not have any useful information and are not up to date on the new information so why argue as if you are? What is clear is that as the genetic code expanded the rate if diversity increased. We have evidence how regulator genes and epigenetic factors create immense variation. You must have something better than what you linked to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 15 billion year old universe does not have enough time to produce life through the Darwinian evolutionary process.
That is the true bottom line.
Life only comes from life is what real science observes-
Life from Life...or Not?

You do not seem to realize that AiG requires their workers to swear not to follow the scientific method. It is not a valid site for supporting a scientific debate. It is only a propaganda and proselytizing site.

Edit: Just for fun I checked out the article. Most of it deals with explaining how Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation. After that it was the usual strawman arguments. Strange and unsupported attacks against Haeckel, and outright lies. Nothing new there.

 

[Bear Wild]

You do not seem to realize that AiG requires their workers to swear not to follow the scientific method. It is not a valid site for supporting a scientific debate. It is only a propaganda and proselytizing site.

Edit: Just for fun I checked out the article. Most of it deals with explaining how Pasteur refuted spontaneous generation. After that it was the usual strawman arguments. Strange and unsupported attacks against Haeckel, and outright lies. Nothing new there.

They can't follow the scientific method otherwise there conclusion would be evolution is true. Much better to snow everyone with over simplifications, ridiculous statements, misquoted research and non sensical mathematical models. Overall when there is no evidence what else can you do but to create your own fictional evidence. Still love their website - evolutionsnews.org.- if that is not misleading and dishonest.