tas8831
Well-Known Member
So precious how they have their little stories...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
"Where Did Life Come From?" A 13 Minute Primer For Creationists
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
So precious how they have their little stories...
tas8831
Well-Known Member
"Since it was the Creator who brought the specimens to Noah, and it was he who brought the deluge"
Oh man, such imaginations in children...
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Science is tackling issues with actual explanations while kicking the "magical assertions" out of those "gaps" in the process.
Like how understanding the tides and storms kind of made Poseidon obselete.
So it's not so much that magic becomes science.
It's more like science discards magic.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
What roadblocks?
Demonstrably false.
The vast majority of mutations are neutral.
Case in point: every human, on average, comes with 50-ish mutations. This goes for all humans, including you and me. I don't seem to suffer from any harmfull mutations, do you? So right of the bat, we can already state that most mutations are in fact NOT harmfull at all. If MOST would be harmfull, it would mean that each and every human averages out at MORE THEN 25 HARMFULL mutations.
This doesn't seem to be the case at all, now does it?
Well, it demonstrably does.
SOME mutations are beneficial in terms of fitness. These tend to survive and spread, resulting in a net "improvement" of the species (in terms of its fitness).
Not at all.
Because it is demonstrably and observably the case.
What else did you expect? A fossil of every species of every generation that ever walked the planet?
Nope. Just like for the genetics, the fossil record MUST match a very specific pattern in order to fit into an evolutionary history. A pattern in terms of which anatomical traits are found in which locations and in wich layers.
There are PLENTY of fossils imaginable that would post serious serious problems for evolution.
Like for example remains of a mammal with feathers.
Or a rabbit fossil in pre-cambrian rock.
Or a 10 million year old kangaroo fossil in latin america.
...
In order for the fossil record to be supportive of evolution, it must comply to parameters in terms of anatomy, age and location. 3 distinct and independend parameters. Groups of parameters actually. Because anatomy for example can be expanded into thousands and thousands of seperate datapoints that must all fit the model in order to be supportive of evolution.
If evolutionary history is wrong, then why is it that we can't seem to find a SINGLE fossil with the wrong traits in the wrong place of the wrong age? Not a single one!
We have millions of fossils today. ALL of which fit the model. NONE of which contradict it.
Why is this?
Why does the ENTIRE fossil record look exactly like it should look if life has an evolutionary history?
There is no assumption.
This is how it works....
Evolution posits a mechanism, a process, to which life is subject to.
This model makes predictions. IF this model is accurate, then genomes most show such and such patterns and properties. IF this model is accurate, fossils should comply to such and such parameters.
And when we look at genomes and fossils, they comply to the things the model predicts they should comply to.
It didn't have to be that way. If evolution didn't happen, then there is NO REASON for not finding rabbits in pre-cambrian rock. There is NO REASON why there shouldn't be mammals with feathers. Etc.
But as it turns out... fossils and genomes actually DO match the predictions of the model of evolution.
So it is not assumed. It's just how it is.
The fossil record and the genetic record, look exactly like they are expected to look, if evolution theory is accurate.
But the evidence does.
That is simply not true.
ID is no model that makes testable predictions.
Evolution is. And the evidence matches the predictions.
Nope, as explained above.
But somehow, I'm positive that you'll ignore the explanation and repeat the same falsehoods again.
The ones that come before taxonomies were fixed....where single-called organisms cleverly evolved into all the living, breathing creatures who have ever existed. Can science produce any solid evidence that what they are suggesting is even possible? I see lots of assertions...."might have's" and "could have's"....becoming "must have's" because evolution dictates that is *must* have taken place as they imagine....but I see nothing concrete about any of it.
If the mutation is neutral, then it is neither beneficial, nor detrimental. If the mutation is not noticeable one way or another, then what does it contribute to the organism or how it functions? When has a mutation or adaptation ever taken something out of its "family" to create a whole new one? All it does is produce variety within that family. If science has never observed it.....it is a best guess.
If I Google "beneficial mutations" in humans....how many will I find?
But if I look for detrimental mutations, guess how many I find? If you depend on beneficial mutations, then it's not looking good for evolution, statistically speaking.
You mean "SOME" of the few? Haven't you just reduced your odds again? Suggestions with no real evidence are not really very convincing....sorry.
"Demonstrably and observably"? Where?
Assumptions are not facts. Making suggestions based on biased interpretation of "evidence" is not really convincing either. Science is assuming all of this. All they know is that an Intelligent Creator must be eliminated from all considerations....and if it takes ridicule and bullying to accomplish it...then that is what we will see. Ever watched Dawkins or Coyne?
Who wants to be laughed out of academia? Out of all the millions of species that must have ever existed, linking one to the one before, surely there must be many of those missing links discovered......but there aren't any. Again I see suggestions, but no concrete proof for any of it. It's more like wishful thinking. Is that what science is to you?
We all know that "similarity" seems to be a favorite way to make one creature into the "ancestor" of another....like with whale evolution.....a similar ear bone magically makes a four legged land dweller into the ancestor of a whale. Really?
Did it ever occur to you that creators tweak things until they are satisfied with the finished product. Go to any artist's studio and see how many of their works make it into a gallery and how many are left behind. We are made in the image of our Creator....if we are like him...then in many ways he must be like us. At the conclusion of each creative "day" (possibly millions of years each) there is a declaration of the Creator's satisfaction with what he had completed in that period. A magic "poofer" would not need to approve of his own work.
So, if we get rid of the big magician in the sky scenario, an Intelligent Designer who took millions of years to fashion his creation, becomes a way more plausible explanation for the amazing complexities in nature than accidental evolution. Creation needs none of the unique and imaginative explanations that evolution requires.
Funny, but we Bible believers (some of whom are scientists) will see the same "evidence" as evolutionary scientists, and come to completely different conclusions. Interpretation is what makes the difference. Who is to say whose interpretation is correct without proof? Each then becomes a matter of FAITH......shocking, isn't it!?
Since assumption is the basis for their interpretation, then bias in interpreting the evidence will lead to faulty conclusions. The truth is, science does not know that anything they proffer is true.....they "believe" it is......we "believe" differently. We have two belief systems with equal *real* evidence. We make the choice as to which one to accept.
Who uses fossils to tell their story? The fossils can't talk, unless scientists put words in their mouths. They fit the model because science sets the model to fit their theory.
That's because science has painted its own picture without telling some really important truths. People believe the scientists.....when it comes to presenting how life on earth is so diverse, I see too many holes and too much reliance on suggestion to prove their case. Sorry it just doesn't stand up. There is too much ingenuity in creation to be accidental...undesigned. How many flukes can you present before the stats become ridiculous?
They look that way because the power of suggestion can sell ice to Eskimos. If you want to believe it, then you will be motivated to accept everything they tell you. It's what they don't tell you that reveals the flaws in their arguments.
A different conclusion can be reached by understanding that creation has one Creator, using the same raw materials over a very long period of time. This is actually what the Bible teaches. No magic...no poofing.
The same building blocks for life were organized by someone with great intelligence, ingenuity and power. He created each living thing with ability to replicate itself.....male and female were created to produce copies of themselves....by programming that is inborn. Science calls it instinct.....where did such programming come from? Just another fluke out of millions?
And did the incredible workings of the Eco-systems just accidentally produce themselves?
Universal laws have no law maker? What laws write themselves?
Without their interpretation, the "evidence" says no such thing.
It's pure supposition.
"Testable predictions"? Are "predictions" more a part of science than actual proof? Can you interpret evidence based on your own bias and actually come to truthful conclusions? If science creates the rules...who else can play?
"Explanations" are all you can offer....that is not the same as providing actual proof. You see I know that the science buffs here will tell me that there are no "proofs" in science......if you have no proof, then you have no facts.....all you have is an unprovable theory and a bunch of academics who have to believe it or else they will be accused of being uneducated, or worse.....unintelligent.
That means that falsehoods can just as easily be taught to the masses as religion. Science is the religion of the unbelievers.....it has as many "beliefs" as we do.....none of them provable.
IMO the intelligence so evident in creation is there for all to see with their own eyes....no science degrees required.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Still waiting on you to define what these roadblocks supposedly are. Your incredulity or expression of ignorance, isn't evidence that such supposed roadblocks exist.
So, do you have something other then just your mere incredulity?
Yes.
The fossil record, the genetic record, the geographical distribution of species, comparative anatomy, comparative genomics and the literal observation of things like speciation.
That's standard science jargon which you will find in every single science paper - be it about evolution or another theory.
It's called intellectual honesty.
Correct.
Evolution doesn't work that way.
It's a gradual process. A single mutation does not create a new species.
And also, species never "switch" families. Evolution is a vertical process. Every organism that was ever born, belonged to the same species as its biological parents.
Just like every child ever born, spoke the language of the people that raised it.
No latin speaking mother has ever raised a spanish speaking child.
Yet, the distant ancestors of all spanish speaking people, spoke latin.
Same concept. It's the nature of gradualism and accumulation of micro changes
Which eventually leads to speciation into sub-species belonging to the same taxa as all its ancestors.
Science has observed speciation.
A couple. Immunity to malaria and stuff.
Clearly you have no real understanding of how evolution works.
The process doesn't need many beneficial mutations at all.
Even if there are on average more detrimental ones, is not an issue at all.
Because the detrimental ones are selected out of the gene pool rather fast.
And beneficial ones spread through the gene pool rather fast as well.
As long as some beneficial ones occur, evolution can do its thing.
Sure.
No. And as said: some is enough. 1 beneficial out of a million or even less, is enough for evolution to work with.
Harmfull ones get deleted quickly.
Neutral ones don't matter.
Beneficial ones spread through the gene pool.
It doesn't really matter what the ratios of these are against eachother. The only thing that would be problematic, is if harmfull ones suddenly became the majority. At that point, every newborn would die and life would go extinct. But they aren't the majority at all, so there's no such problem.
And as long as SOME beneficial ones occur, evolution has its required amunition to push species forwards.
What suggestions? Do you disagree that beneficial mutations occur?
In lots of species, including ourselves.
Did you forget also that your comment to which I responded that, was flowing from the falsehood that said that most mutations are harmfull and yet science thinks it drives evolution?
You were simply wrong about that. Most mutations aren't harmfull at all.
So your premise was incorrect. Faulty premises result in faulty conclusions.
That beneficial mutations occur, is not an assumption. It is an observed fact. Observed in the wild AND in the lab.
No. Again, observed fact.
Evolution says nothing about any creators because there is no evidence of such creators.
Christian/theist biologists have no issues with that either.
Show me a science paper on evolution wich engages in "ridicule and bullying".
Ever watched Dawkins or Coyne?
Show me a science paper authored by Dawkins in which he engages in ridicule or bullying.
What Dawkins says in his commercial books or interviews, is not relevant to the biological sciences.
He's a human with opinions. So what?
None of it is relevant to his actual scientific work.
*ahum*
... and many more.
Off course, if you are just going to ignore all these fossils, then obviously you're going to miss the fact that they exist....
Science works with evidence, not proof.
Anyhow, the couple examples above are exactly what you claim doesn't exist: transitional fossils, showing the gradual changes that took place and of which we have snapshots in the form of fossils from various points in history.
We all know that "similarity" seems to be a favorite way to make one creature into the "ancestor" of another....like with whale evolution.....a similar ear bone magically makes a four legged land dweller into the ancestor of a whale. Really?
For the bazzilionth time.... not just mere similarities, but patterns thereof. Nested hierarchies.
And combinations of patterns.
I'm sorry if you really can't manage to comprehend the difference.
Not a single artist's full body of work will exhibit nested hierarchies. Not a single one.
No.
1. a designer would not create things with nested hierarchies. Not an intelligent one, anyway
2. we have a demonstrable process that "tinkers" with genetics and by doing so introduces gradual change in species. And this process HAS TO result in nested hierarchies.
3. there isn't a single iota of evidence or reason to suggest these mysterious designers exist.
For these reasons alone, it is meaningless and utterly useles to include a designer in this. There is no evidence of such, it is entirely unecessary (since we already identified a sufficient process to explain diversity of life) and on top of it all, it is completely unfalsifiable.
You might as well argue that relativity is ignoring the undetectable gravity-regulating pixies....
It has the exact same merrit.
I did.....perhaps you missed it. Read it again.
We 'Bible believers' can look at all of that and still see the work of an Intelligent Creator.
Speciation proves what? Everything I have ever read on speciation merely reveals variety produced within a taxonomic family. Species are just different presentations or varieties of the same family.
How does it prove evolution? The Creator loves variety....so do we.
It's called "educated guessing". If something was absolute truth, such language would never have to be used. They are "honestly" confessing "we don't really know". Why is that so hard to admit? Today's "truth" may be exposed as tomorrow's 'error'...."we used to believe this, but now we believe that".
I never said it did. All I see is evidence for variations within a set taxonomy, so what happened before those taxonomies were set?
Show us how microscopic single called organisms eventually made themselves into dinosaurs. It's a bit like trying to explain how a grain of sand became a brick which eventually became a skyscraper, when all you have is a grain of sand and a brick and lots of assumptions about how the finished product materialized. If no one was there to observe and record the process...then it becomes guesswork.
And that is the basic problem right there. If all organisms always belong to their biological families.....please explain what happened before those "families" became classifiable. On diagrams we often see some vague unknown imaginary "ancestor" on the family tree. Not very scientific, is it?
Are you serious? This is your explanation?
An accumulation of micro changes that also ensures that they remain within a set family. None of the species within that family will genetically ever become a new or different taxa.
For example, the class Mammalia is a taxon which includes all mammalian species, which suggests that all mammals are somehow related....but are they? How many different and unrelated creatures feed their young on milk? By classifying them under one heading, a false impression is created.
A similar false impression is created by assuming that all vertebrates have a common ancestor. Under their classification, they all have "a skull and backbone with small bones called vertebrae"....but does that mean that all creatures with this basic framework are related? Or could it be like an architect who knows how buildings are engineered, chooses a similar framework for all his building projects because it is the most stable and successful?
Thank you.....that is my point. No matter how many minor changes take place, the creature will never cross its natural genetic boundary.
Science has observed adaptation. All specimens remained true to their "kind". Darwin saw adapted species on the Galapagos Islands, who all remained true to their family. The finches were still finches.....the tortoises were still tortoises....the iguanas were still iguanas.....are you blind? All were clearly identifiable with their mainland cousins. No matter how much time elapsed, they would never become anything but varieties within a set family.To step outside of what is observable, is to enter a world of fantasy and imagination....the one you believe we are in.
Yep.
"...and stuff"....hmmmm very scientific. I guess you found what I did....not much at all eh?
If you say so. I have been fed that "you don't understand how evolution works" accusation more times than I can count. I understand it perfectly well....I just think its a load of garbage, personally.
You can believe whatever you wish.
Even a one in a million mutation would still not change one creature into another. You seem to want to ignore the very foundation of macro-evolution....how a single called organism morphed into all the life forms that have ever existed. Please show us the scientific evidence for those early processes.
It is part of the natural design in living things to eliminate faulty genes....if not straight away, then eventually those faulty genes will create the conditions for their own extinction.
What if the various species were created to be exactly as they were designed to be? Any tweaking would have been accomplished by the Creator with no need to push anything forward.
Do you believe that all early humans were ape-like cave dwellers? I see no evidence for that. Even in our modern world we see those who still live a primitive existence.
What I see is an unbridgeable gap between any living ape and human beings....in language skills, intellect, planning and accomplishments. The fact that humans alone possess a concept of "past, present and future" sets us apart from any other living thing. Animals can learn from past events and bring them into the present, but they are governed by instinct.....they have no concept of the future or ability to plan future actions. They live in the present and the needs of the present dictate their actions.....instinct is an amazing thing. It is pre-programmed wisdom from the Creator, ensuring the perpetuation of all species.
Tell me what beneficial mutations you are discussing and where I might find them listed in scientific literature....
I can concede that beneficial mutations "may" occur, but you and I both know that a list of established ones will be ridiculously short.
Continued....
Well, I believe I said that when mutations do occur in humans they are mostly detrimental, and since your own efforts to list beneficial ones ended in "stuff", I am guessing that you did not follow my line of reasoning.
Please show us these beneficial mutations......ones that are not just adaptations within a species like the Peppered Moth. OK?
I disagree....the *real* evidence for Intelligent Design is all around us. Just because science hasn't figured out a way to test for God, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. The Universe is not an accident.....matter is not an accident...our earth is not an accident and neither are all the living things we share this planet with. Design is staring you all in the face every day.....yet the collective blindness is incredible.
The attitudes of Dawkins and Coyne and their ilk, are what motivate people to adopt one unprovable belief system over another. Who wants to appear to be uneducated or unintelligent to one's peers? Non-conformists do not last long in the halls of academia.
The examples you provided do not prove anything. There are no transitional fossils there because what you displayed are examples of different animals who lived at different times with no need to evolve at all. All had the same basic framework because they had the same designer. Adaptive ability is included in his design, so changes over time do not create new creatures as your illustration shows.
The ape to human skulls also are open to interpretation. Just because the Creator made creatures with similar traits and genetics, does not prove relationship by evolution. If evolution is a push forward, then why have some species not pushed forward at all? They are still basically the same as they always were?
"Evidence" is interpreted that way because evolution demands it. You see what you want to see, but so do I.
Ah yes...nested hierarchies....
"Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.
In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits."
Nested hierarchies
So according to this diagram, Crocodiles and birds are related....whales and camels too...just as related as humans and chimpanzees and snakes and lizards....? Seriously? And "at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share common traits".....yes we do...like breathing, eating and having a skeleton and a heartbeat.
An Intelligent Designer is not falsifiable either. You cannot prove that he does not exist. You can "believe" that he doesn't....but that does not eliminate him from existence...only from the minds of unbelievers.
Logic dictates that what is designed for a purpose requires planning....planning requires a mind and intelligence and all that we see in a beautifully functioning eco-system (ones not messed up by man) clearly exhibits ingenious self regulating, design. To suggest that all the complex systems that operate in nature and in every living thing is a product of chance is to throw logic out the window.
If you say so......I don't believe in 'gravity regulating pixies' however....but I do believe that you will encounter the Creator at some point in your existence as all humans will. I guess you will all have to acknowledge him then?
Well, I believe I said that when mutations do occur in humans they are mostly detrimental, and since your own efforts to list beneficial ones ended in "stuff", I am guessing that you did not follow my line of reasoning.
Please show us these beneficial mutations......ones that are not just adaptations within a species like the Peppered Moth. OK?
I disagree....the *real* evidence for Intelligent Design is all around us. Just because science hasn't figured out a way to test for God, doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. The Universe is not an accident.....matter is not an accident...our earth is not an accident and neither are all the living things we share this planet with. Design is staring you all in the face every day.....yet the collective blindness is incredible.
The attitudes of Dawkins and Coyne and their ilk, are what motivate people to adopt one unprovable belief system over another. Who wants to appear to be uneducated or unintelligent to one's peers? Non-conformists do not last long in the halls of academia.
The examples you provided do not prove anything. There are no transitional fossils there because what you displayed are examples of different animals who lived at different times with no need to evolve at all. All had the same basic framework because they had the same designer. Adaptive ability is included in his design, so changes over time do not create new creatures as your illustration shows.
The ape to human skulls also are open to interpretation. Just because the Creator made creatures with similar traits and genetics, does not prove relationship by evolution. If evolution is a push forward, then why have some species not pushed forward at all? They are still basically the same as they always were?
"Evidence" is interpreted that way because evolution demands it. You see what you want to see, but so do I.
Ah yes...nested hierarchies....
"Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies — rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.
In this phylogeny, snakes and lizards share a large number of traits as they are more closely related to one another than to the other animals represented. The same can be said of crocodiles and birds, whales and camels, and humans and chimpanzees. However, at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share some common traits."
Nested hierarchies
So according to this diagram, Crocodiles and birds are related....whales and camels too...just as related as humans and chimpanzees and snakes and lizards....? Seriously? And "at a more inclusive level, snakes, lizards, birds, crocodiles, whales, camels, chimpanzees and humans all share common traits".....yes we do...like breathing, eating and having a skeleton and a heartbeat.
An Intelligent Designer is not falsifiable either. You cannot prove that he does not exist. You can "believe" that he doesn't....but that does not eliminate him from existence...only from the minds of unbelievers.
Logic dictates that what is designed for a purpose requires planning....planning requires a mind and intelligence and all that we see in a beautifully functioning eco-system (ones not messed up by man) clearly exhibits ingenious self regulating, design. To suggest that all the complex systems that operate in nature and in every living thing is a product of chance is to throw logic out the window.
If you say so......I don't believe in 'gravity regulating pixies' however....but I do believe that you will encounter the Creator at some point in your existence as all humans will. I guess you will all have to acknowledge him then?
Last edited:
I don't know. Let's look at this closer. What would cause grown adults that know nothing about science to deny science as if they understand it? How convenient. What could it be? I don't know.Gotta love it.....when Deeje comes across science material for laypeople she waves it away as too simplistic and childish, and when she comes across science material for professionals she waves it away too technical and laden with "technobabble" (and accuses the scientists of using jargon to deliberately confuse the public).
Gee, it's almost like she just looks for any excuse she can think of to make inconvenient information go away. Now why would Deeje do that?
Could it be...Doctrine?
This is all just nonsense. It is made up. Genetic boundaries. No such thing. What are kinds? Whatever anyone wants it to mean.I did.....perhaps you missed it. Read it again.
We 'Bible believers' can look at all of that and still see the work of an Intelligent Creator.
Speciation proves what? Everything I have ever read on speciation merely reveals variety produced within a taxonomic family. Species are just different presentations or varieties of the same family.
How does it prove evolution? The Creator loves variety....so do we.
It's called "educated guessing". If something was absolute truth, such language would never have to be used. They are "honestly" confessing "we don't really know". Why is that so hard to admit? Today's "truth" may be exposed as tomorrow's 'error'...."we used to believe this, but now we believe that".
I never said it did. All I see is evidence for variations within a set taxonomy, so what happened before those taxonomies were set?
Show us how microscopic single called organisms eventually made themselves into dinosaurs. It's a bit like trying to explain how a grain of sand became a brick which eventually became a skyscraper, when all you have is a grain of sand and a brick and lots of assumptions about how the finished product materialized. If no one was there to observe and record the process...then it becomes guesswork.
And that is the basic problem right there. If all organisms always belong to their biological families.....please explain what happened before those "families" became classifiable. On diagrams we often see some vague unknown imaginary "ancestor" on the family tree. Not very scientific, is it?
Are you serious? This is your explanation?
An accumulation of micro changes that also ensures that they remain within a set family. None of the species within that family will genetically ever become a new or different taxa.
For example, the class Mammalia is a taxon which includes all mammalian species, which suggests that all mammals are somehow related....but are they? How many different and unrelated creatures feed their young on milk? By classifying them under one heading, a false impression is created.
A similar false impression is created by assuming that all vertebrates have a common ancestor. Under their classification, they all have "a skull and backbone with small bones called vertebrae"....but does that mean that all creatures with this basic framework are related? Or could it be like an architect who knows how buildings are engineered, chooses a similar framework for all his building projects because it is the most stable and successful?
Thank you.....that is my point. No matter how many minor changes take place, the creature will never cross its natural genetic boundary.
Science has observed adaptation. All specimens remained true to their "kind". Darwin saw adapted species on the Galapagos Islands, who all remained true to their family. The finches were still finches.....the tortoises were still tortoises....the iguanas were still iguanas.....are you blind? All were clearly identifiable with their mainland cousins. No matter how much time elapsed, they would never become anything but varieties within a set family.To step outside of what is observable, is to enter a world of fantasy and imagination....the one you believe we are in.
Yep.
"...and stuff"....hmmmm very scientific. I guess you found what I did....not much at all eh?
If you say so. I have been fed that "you don't understand how evolution works" accusation more times than I can count. I understand it perfectly well....I just think its a load of garbage, personally.
You can believe whatever you wish.
Even a one in a million mutation would still not change one creature into another. You seem to want to ignore the very foundation of macro-evolution....how a single called organism morphed into all the life forms that have ever existed. Please show us the scientific evidence for those early processes.
It is part of the natural design in living things to eliminate faulty genes....if not straight away, then eventually those faulty genes will create the conditions for their own extinction.
What if the various species were created to be exactly as they were designed to be? Any tweaking would have been accomplished by the Creator with no need to push anything forward.
Do you believe that all early humans were ape-like cave dwellers? I see no evidence for that. Even in our modern world we see those who still live a primitive existence.
What I see is an unbridgeable gap between any living ape and human beings....in language skills, intellect, planning and accomplishments. The fact that humans alone possess a concept of "past, present and future" sets us apart from any other living thing. Animals can learn from past events and bring them into the present, but they are governed by instinct.....they have no concept of the future or ability to plan future actions. They live in the present and the needs of the present dictate their actions.....instinct is an amazing thing. It is pre-programmed wisdom from the Creator, ensuring the perpetuation of all species.
Tell me what beneficial mutations you are discussing and where I might find them listed in scientific literature....
I can concede that beneficial mutations "may" occur, but you and I both know that a list of established ones will be ridiculously short.
I guess you need to ask your spiritual guides.....they seem to have the answers you seek.
Of course you have already checked to see that they are not the "blind" variety who reject what Jesus taught.....a very important qualification, that.
All I have to do is read your posts and recognize that you do not have one clue about science or what you are talking about. This is all just mindless repetition of an interpretation of your churches doctrine and I see little to do with Christ here. He was not a promoter of fantasy.I guess you need to ask your spiritual guides.....they seem to have the answers you seek.
Of course you have already checked to see that they are not the "blind" variety who reject what Jesus taught.....a very important qualification, that.
Then why do you treat him as if he is? You are the one who denies what he says....not us.
Do you know of animals that have all the traits of mammals that are not mammals? Do you know that diseases are caused by living organism, genetic mutations, nutrient deficiency or toxins and not by sex? What is the scientific definition of kind? You have no answer but you filled up thousands of characters of text as if you did.I guess you need to ask your spiritual guides.....they seem to have the answers you seek.
Of course you have already checked to see that they are not the "blind" variety who reject what Jesus taught.....a very important qualification, that.
I have done nothing of the sort. I have pointed out a person that knows nothing about science, yet denies it as if they do.
Are you being Christian to deny facts and attack other people that point out your errors and flaws when your pages of arguments fail? You seem very quick to smear other people and religions. I saw you attacking Catholics the other day. You attacked my religion in response to the very first post I made to you about vaccinations. You are among the first to start firing shots even when it is clear that the criticism to what you posted was valid and you were clearly ignorant in what you posted. Is that something your church promotes?
We do not deny provable science.....why would we deny provable facts...the good work of scientists? We acknowledge those.
What we deny is the theory of evolution...an unprovable assertion made by those who claim to know science.....and which as a Christian you accept, whilst you deny that the God and Father of Jesus Christ created everything just as he said he did.
Who are you to tell God or anyone else that he didn't do just as he said he did? You ridicule the words of your own Master. Does that make you a good representative of Christianity? Or does it mean you've sold out to science? You think you have a nice safe fence to sit on with one foot in science and the other foot in church? There is no fence. Either God created all you see in this Universe...or he didn't. Which is it?
Yes, I actually have the courage of my convictions and I call a spade a spade.....its the Aussie in me.....we don't like to beat around the bush, or worry about stepping on itty-bitty toes. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I cop it as much as I dish it.....that's fair in my assessment. Its a debate forum and passionate views are expressed......your own included.
I follow Jesus when I see religious falsehood being portrayed as truth. I expose it because I can't stand religious hypocrisy....its what I was raised with. It pushes my buttons.
No one can claim to be a Christian and then deny what Christ taught.
Matthew 19:4...
"Did you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female?”
Genesis 1:27...
"And God went on to create the man in his image, in God’s image he created him; male and female he created them."
Genesis 5:2...
"Male and female he created them. On the day they were created, he blessed them and named them Man."
Matthew 10:33...
“Whoever disowns me before men, I will also disown him before my Father who is in the heavens."
That is what I believe.
I am not really interested in what you believe. I am also not interested in getting into a debate with someone that cannot keep from turning it into a petty argument that has nothing to do with the points of discussion.
There is no such thing as provable science. There never has been. So your agreement with it cannot exist.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
You're talkin' crazy man!
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That it occurs.
Using other words to avoid the word that notes a change in species is not going to make your creationist point, nore is it going to diminish the significance of what speciation is all about.
If speciation resulted in members of a DIFFERENT family, evolution would be falsified.
Perhaps you should inform yourself a bit.
Nothing "proves" evolution, just like nothing "proves" relativity, plate tectonics, germs, atoms, etc
But it sure as heck supports it. Speciation is the evolutionary process by which new species arise.
If there was no speciation, there would be no evolution.
Indeed. But science doesn't deal in "absolute truth".
This is why every single science paper on any subject will be using intellectually honest language.
They are "honestly" confessing "we don't really know". Why is that so hard to admit? Today's "truth" may be exposed as tomorrow's 'error'...."we used to believe this, but now we believe that".
Black and white nonsense.
No, it's not a case of either "we don't really know and are just guessing" or "we know literally everything with absolute certainty".
There's a whole range of confidence levels in between.
Do you realise that if you would see something different, evolution would be falsified?
Ancestral taxonomies existed.
Before there were mammals, there were vertebrates.
Mammals are still vertebrates (and will remain vertebrates).
Before there were felines, there were mammals.
Felines are still mammals (and will remain mammals).
Before there were homo sapiens, there were primates.
Homo sapiens are still primates (and will remain primates).
It's called a nested hierarchy.
You might have heared of it, when many, including myself, brought it to your attention when you set off on another strawman version / misrepresentation of the evidence of evolution.
Reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.
If you are looking for a detailed step-by-step pathway of how a microscopic organism evolved into a dino over the course of a few billion years, then I'll have to disappoint you for obvious reasons.
Try asking a reasonable question instead.
Sand, brick and skyscrapers aren't self-replication biological entities that reproduce with variation and which are in comptetion with peers over limited resources.
So why would you even pretend they are analogous to entities that are?
We observe evolution every day.
It's why we need new flu shots every year.
It's why anti-biotics no longer work very well.
It's how we managed to take a wild banana and transformed it into the chiquita we all love.
It's how we took a single wild gabbage plant and turned it into brussel sprouts and broccoli.
It's not.
Families have always been classifiable. What are you talking about?
You mean, aside from it being genetic fact?
It's not imaginary when it's right there in the genes.
Here's an analogy that might make it clear (although I doubt you'll allow it to sink in).
Suppose 2 people die in a fiery plane crash. The bodies completely incenerated. They leave 2 babies behind. They both are send to different foster parents.
Years later, all is forgotten about those parents. For some reason, there are no records of them, no DNA, nothing.
They two siblings find out that they are siblings through DNA tests.
We can know infer that both siblings shared an UNKNOWN ancestor. Parents, in this case.
Are those parents "imaginary", simply because we have no direct records of them?
I say they most definatly aren't. They might be "unknown", in the sense of we not having any records of them. But it is a GENETIC FACT that they existed as the ancestors of both siblings.
It's the exact same thing.
Are you serious? This is your explanation?
What is your objection to it?
Do you disagree that spanish, italian, french and portugese all derive from Latin?
Do you disagree that the 2000-year old ancestors of italians and spanish folk spoke Latin and that italian and spanish didn't exist then?
Do you think that at some point an entire generation of people simply decided to invent "spanish" and stop speaking latin over night?
Obviously, not.
Instead, Latin gradually changed into all these new languages. One sound / syllable at a time, over generations.
Over the course of 2000 years, Latin changed into Italian, Spanish, French and Portugese.
Yet, every child ever born, spoke the language of the people that raised said child.
As evolution predicts.
Switching families, would falsify evolution.
How many times must it be repeated??????
As evolution predicts.
Switching families, would falsify evolution.
How many times must it be repeated??????
Yes.
And mammals themselves also belong to the groups of tetrapods, vertebrates, eukaryotes,...
Many different ones, but all of them related.
For the bazzilionth time: it's not about mere similarities. It is about THE PATTERN THEREOF. Nested hierarchies.
I'm skipping the rest because your entire post is just based on the exact same falsehood over and over and over again. Eventhough it's been corrected countless times already.
I think it's kind of hilarious that you keep saying things like "creatures never evolve out of their family!" as if evolution for some reason requires such to happen, while in reality evolution would be shown false if we ever observe such a thing.
You also really really really insist on not comprehending the implications of the pattern of nested hierarchies.
Willfull ignorance, all the way.
Ostrich defenses.