Evolution is a joke pt. XV

I matters not what the definition of speciation is. Mutations happen - which over time - and many more mutations later - result in enough differences for us to categorize it as a different species

This is evolution.

Evolution does not state that - although some of the principles could be extended backwards in that direction... The theory of evolution is as stated above - so it is not unusual for folks to conflate the two.

If you wish to talk abiogenesis - how living stuff arose out of non living - this is a different question. - although as stated .. some of the principles apply - at "Some points" along the proposed chain ..

The question of how the first organic molecules arose is not addressed by evolution .. but by nature .. "Nature did it" and this has been shown possible - and in fact likely - we have found amino acids on meteorites ..

what's more - is given the right conditions - a lava vent in the ocean .. or a tidal pool . RNA molecules will form - spontaneously.

Further - it been shown more recently that primitive percursor's to RNA that are "self replicating" will form spontaneously. Further - primitive cell walls - filters basically - will form spontaneously

So now you have the basics of a very primitive cell - replication - cell wall - energy - now Evolution can over - more complex organic molecules form - the most successful at surviving being dominant - those not so successful dying off.

 

There are a lot of scientist that do not believe evolution is proven.

To prove evolution "being the foundation of biology" is absurd.

Science is to be proven - not the other way around, hence the scientific method.

How about this - put those digits to work and Google/metacrawler the first Scientific Notation/math/Experiment that proved evolution was (AT LEAST) a theory.

Then take your case study and list the other notations of the success to show - Yes! We have shown that "X" experiment has proven that DNA is acceptable to severe changes turning a fish into a two legged H2O being with hair.

 

Very well put.

 

And I remember you back then also Rahl. Hope all is good in your life. Then we talked about RNA sequences and so forth. It was my first posting ever. I took trolling for it's definition per dictionary, to the Urban Dictionary which butchers common dialect.

 

Good GRAVY!!!

FABULOUS POST!!!

Kudos.

 

Actually, some Scientific Notations and Papers show that the two (faiths) can coexist.

ALSO

My hypothesis has been substantiated. Evolution has not passed the Scientific Method.

Done ...

 

I don't disagree with anything said -- but unless I missed it you left off a key part of evolution which is natural selection. Creationist like to claim that a (for example) Kangaroo is not randomly created ignoring the fact that evolution is a process of both random mutation and natural selection. One without the other is not evolution.

 

HOW DID I MISS THIS?!?!

FIRST: New species cannot reproduce with previous species

SECOND: There is no such thing "as over time", since every lifecycle is completely different. Example: A red wood tree can live a thousand years - compared to a single cell organism who has a lifespan of hours - who evolves first? How many lifecycles does it take for life evolve?

THIRD: abiogenesis is a completely different topic - and I will say 0+0 will always equal 0.

FOURTH: I would love to debate that at a later date.

 

I was waiting for someone to point that out. Funny we are seven (7) pages in and you are the first to post anything about Natural Selection!

Kudos.

 

I didn't leave out natural selection - and most of my post is not about evolution but abiogenesis. .. perhaps you missed the last sentence "the most successful at surviving being dominant - those not so successful dying off"

 

I pointed it out in the post the poster was referring to -

 

Not ignored Why would I mention natural selection - when talking about the natural processes of abiogenesis. As it turns out however .. I do talk about Natural selection.

I missed a word in last sentence but shouldn't make a difference .. should read

"So now you have the basics of a very primitive cell - replication - cell wall - energy - now Evolution can take over - more complex organic molecules form - the most successful at surviving being dominant - those not so successful dying off"

What part of natural selection is not described in the above sentence ?

 

no there isn't.

it's a demonstrable fact.

demonstrating the reason you have no business talking about anything science related.

no

no. Evolution has withstood over 100 years of scrutiny. Nobody, including you, has been able to refute it.

 

ALL evolution is just an aggregation of genetic changes over time.

There is NOTHING different about speciation - it is still just an aggregation of genetic change over time.

 

This is absolutely false. Evolution is a foundation of ALL biology and is witnessed ALL THE TIME.

In fact, the several exact methods of how genetic change occurs and gets passed on is carefully studied and witnessed in labs.

 

Please state one single step that evolution has not completed over and over and over again.

Let's remember that evolution has been studied for 200 years.

And, within that time there have been NO alternative hypotheses that have withstood testing.

BTW: i do NOT believe you have a scientific hypothesis on this topic.

 

Evolutionists try to use arguments and logic to support their claims. Even if every single argument they make is wrong, its still not faith. Faith is when you knowingly believe without evidence, not using incorrect arguments.

Its also a belief like the belief that the earth is round, or that the sky is blue. Some beliefs have more evidence than others.

If you look at the data, the vast majority of evolutionists believe in God. Evolution is about how life developed, not whether God exists.

Science is about theories making predictions and then those theories gaining evidence as those predictions are confirmed. Its not about proof.

Okay, what about the fact that humans and chimpanzees share retrovirus DNA that was inserted by viruses? Why would virus DNA be in the same spots in two supposedly independent species?

 

Hitler was more of a spiritualist, not an atheist. I could list horrible people who were Christian.

The part of evolution they were using was microevolution, or evolution within a species. They wanted to improve the genetic makeup of our species, not make a whole new species. Creationists accept microevolution as well, but not macroevolution.

I have also seen Christians use the Big Bang to justify their claim that the universe was created like genesis claims and didn't just exist forever

 

Abortion is based on the woman's right to choose, not evolution. The people communism killed was due to their failed economic policies, not evolution or atheism.

 

Um, no Christian says the universe has always existed. On the contrary. They just don't believe that it was a big bang from nothing.

 

Thats what I mean. Christians say that the universe was created, and didn't exist forever. The big bang fits that belief perfectly and confirms the biblical account. William Lane Craig is a famous Christian philosopher who debates evolutionists, and uses the big bang theory to establish that the universe was created. This helps him then argue that God was the creator.

 

The ONUS remains on YOU to provide the actual QUOTES from YOUR sources to support your bovine excrement allegations against Evolution.

YOUR abject FAILURE to do is only harms what little remains of YOUR credibility.

The THEORY of EVOLUTION contains HYPOTHESES from MULTIPLE Scientific Disciplines that have PASSED the Scientific Method and CORROBORATE that Evolution is based upon scientific FACTS.

Here is a link to a PRIMER on the topic developed for SCHOOL aged children.

https://seahomeschoolers.com/real-world-application-scientific-method-theory-evolution/

Your turn!

 

Yet another example of TROLLING is fallaciously claiming "victory" WITHOUT having proven anything at all.

Pathetic is the term that springs to mind.

 

You did...

You did leave out Natural Selection.

Your quoted text is similar to Natural Selection, but does not describe it in it's full spectrum. It is far more than what you have in quotes.

I know what you are talking about, but others may not. I suggest when bringing up a "new" subject, give a definition so they will not confuse it later in the debate.

Just saying...

 

What part?

Wouldn't the others (not selected by this farce) still breed and evolve as a lesser species? Example:. The sloth, squirrel, cow, horse... I can go on...

Your subject can be debunked by living life today.

Explain how a squirrel is still on this planet or most important - a sloth. Sloth is the best example... Explain how natural selection created a sloth.