Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Best Evidence for Evolution.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    My favourite subject on evolution is the Whale. I made a post about this.

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...ighlight=Whale

    Whales and their land ancestors are a good evidence for evolution, even their spines ect.

    Abiogenesis is unproven but a logical preconclusion to evolution.

    The very existance of the whale and it's transistional fossil record completly disproves YEC.

    Slowly slowly tranformy monkey (Not that whales came from monkeys)
    Stay Sharp
    Doogie Talons
    ----------------------------------------

    Comment


    • #47
      the evidence, hearkening back to highschool biology, is in the fossil record, and how that relates to modern day organisms. one of the most compelling stories is this: in africa a cery strange fossil from millions of years ago was uncovered. it was similar to that of a wolf, but had the internal ear mechanism of a whale, meaning that it could hear underwater. this has led scientists to believe that whales evolved from early wolf like creatures that eventually found their way into the water. this is also seen in the movement of a whale; the exact same movement of the spine as in the wolf.

      as for all life evolving from a single original ancestor, the theory is like this. the cell would have procreated itself. as it did so, it would spread to new environments. as it did so, it would addapt to the different climates terrains etcetera. it became more complex and eventually split off into millions of genetic lines that we now see today in the diversity of life.

      Comment


      • #48
        ahh doogie i see u beat me to the whale explanation. kudos

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Nineveh View Post
          On this thread, that doesn't appear to be the case. So in keeping with the OP, did you wanna share some?
          It's sorta like you and bob b are asking for evidence of electricity or the existence of atoms, or asking for evidence that the Earth is round. If you were honestly seeking evidence, you could do a quick google search and find it. None of the evolutionists here are responsible for teaching you basic science.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by noguru View Post
            I try to view the evidence as leading into two distinct directions. One is based stringently on the metaphysical assumption that natural processes led to the universe and life as we observe it now. This conclusion is one drawn from natural philosophy without appealing to the metaphysical assumption of the supernatural and/or the divine. The other direction is one that accepts the metaphysical assumptions of the supernatural and/or divine. In this later philosophical world view there is also two distinct possiblities.

            On one hand there is the view that the supernatural and/or the divine works through the natural world and that natural explanations are sufficient to explain the universe and this world. On the other hand there is the view that natural explanations are not sufficient to explain natural phenomenon.
            Not a bad assessment.

            I would only add a few minor points.

            There is little in scripture which would conflict with your view once the universe and life was created during Creation Week. Yes, there are a few "miracles" noted in scripture, but considering the time frame covered these were quite few and far between.

            Of course if we assume that God exists then it could be quite believable that He would be able to duplicate the strategy of Star Trek commanders and adhere to a
            "non interference" policy. For one thing God could be maintaining the so-called "natural laws" of the universe without our knowledge, and as some theologians in the past have surmissed, could easily cease doing this at any time, causing everything in the physical universe to cease existing in the blink of an eye.

            On a smaller scale an all powerful God could easily orchestrate certain details in the world without anyone's knowledge by planting ideas in people's minds, if He wanted to do this. There are hints in the Bible that He does do this from time to time in cases He deems necessary to carry out His overall plans. It is also possible that He responds to some extent to prayers of the Saints (i.e. all of us Christians), but His response would probably be His idea of what is best and not ours.
            Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
            Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by SUTG View Post
              It's sorta like you and bob b are asking for evidence of electricity or the existence of atoms, or asking for evidence that the Earth is round. If you were honestly seeking evidence, you could do a quick google search and find it. None of the evolutionists here are responsible for teaching you basic science.
              If you have nothing to add, it's a simple thing not to add anything.
              Help for

              "...the Reformation broke with Rome but not Greece..." - Bob Enyart

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Nineveh View Post
                If you have nothing to add, it's a simple thing not to add anything.
                Evolutionists like to change the subject when asked for evidence for their belief that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

                This is because they have none (as this thread documents).
                Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by bob b View Post
                  Evolutionists like to change the subject when asked for evidence for their belief that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

                  This is because they have none (as this thread documents).
                  I'm amazed at how desperate you've become in your attempts to refute evolution. Why not just come out and say you refuse to accept it because it contradicts your interpretation of Genesis? It would be so much easier for you.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by bob b View Post
                    Evolutionists like to change the subject when asked for evidence for their belief that all life descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

                    This is because they have none (as this thread documents).
                    Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                    I'm amazed at how desperate you've become in your attempts to refute evolution. Why not just come out and say you refuse to accept it because it contradicts your interpretation of Genesis? It would be so much easier for you.
                    Seems so Mr. B.

                    I'd like to add my best argument for the hpp-to-man theory.



                    The universe appears so big and so old, anything is possible.

                    (sorry, that's the best I could do. Abiogenesis really puts a crimp in my ability to believe in the hpp-to-man theory...)
                    Help for

                    "...the Reformation broke with Rome but not Greece..." - Bob Enyart

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                      I'm amazed at how desperate you've become in your attempts to refute evolution. Why not just come out and say you refuse to accept it because it contradicts your interpretation of Genesis? It would be so much easier for you.
                      I'm not amazed that you would fail to tell us why you think that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell. That is par for the course with evolutionists who always prefer to badmouth the Bible.

                      Many years ago Eugenie Scott tried your same tactic of changing the subject when she debated Bob Enyart (Video available at KGOV.com). She had no evidence for her beliefs either, and Bob neatly disposed of her. But before she hung up she said that she never really debated. This was shortly before she appeared on PBS with Ken Miller et al to debate Behe and Johnson.
                      Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                      Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by bob b View Post
                        I'm not amazed that you would fail to tell us why you think that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell. That is par for the course with evolutionists who always prefer to badmouth the Bible.
                        I gave you a rough outline in post 4. The reasons I believe that "all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell" are the same reasons that professional scientists and biologists and lots of others. Open up a biology book, read a science magazine, read Darwin. I know that as a YEC, you will be unable to accept quite a bit of what you will read in science publications. I can't help you there. But why not just admit this is the case instead of pretending you have scientific objections to all of the science that runs contrary to your interpretation of Genesis.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                          I gave you a rough outline in post 4. The reasons I believe that "all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell" are the same reasons that professional scientists and biologists and lots of others. Open up a biology book, read a science magazine, read Darwin. I know that as a YEC, you will be unable to accept quite a bit of what you will read in science publications. I can't help you there. But why not just admit this is the case instead of pretending you have scientific objections to all of the science that runs contrary to your interpretation of Genesis.
                          I started this thread so that everyone could see that there is no evidence to support the claim that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

                          If you have some evidence (the best evidence as the thread opener asked for) please present it and stop beating around the bush.

                          BTW, none of the "subjects" you mentioned help us to see what is the evidence that convinced you that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell. Or are you simply convinced because of the "bandwagon" effect.
                          Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                          Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by bob b View Post
                            I started this thread so that everyone could see that there is no evidence to support the claim that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell.

                            If you have some evidence (the best evidence as the thread opener asked for) please present it and stop beating around the bush.

                            BTW, none of the "subjects" you mentioned help us to see what is the evidence that convinced you that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell. Or are you simply convinced because of the "bandwagon" effect.
                            It is hard to choose the "best" evidence - there is so much to choose from.

                            But as I said in post 4, I'd probably go with the molecular evidence. Now I'm not going to explain to you what molecules are, what DNA is, and why the DNA evidence shows common ancestry. Anyone who calls themselves a "science lover" should be familiar with such basic science. The same goes with the other categories I listed in post 4.

                            Do your own homework.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                              It is hard to choose the "best" evidence - there is so much to choose from.

                              But as I said in post 4, I'd probably go with the molecular evidence. Now I'm not going to explain to you what molecules are, what DNA is, and why the DNA evidence shows common ancestry. Anyone who calls themselves a "science lover" should be familiar with such basic science. The same goes with the other categories I listed in post 4.

                              Do your own homework.
                              I do my homework, but apparently you don't or you wouldn't have chosen such a subject as the molecular evidence.

                              If you think that this is the best evidence that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell please explain to us dummies why the top experts in this field believe that this task would be impossible because of the potential of simpler creatures to "trade genes" back and forth between different lines of descent by way of horizontal gene transfer.

                              There are other reasons but this should do for starters.
                              Random changes are destructive to any carefully crafted piece of work, such as a computer program, a novel or the genome of a lifeform.
                              Matt 23:24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by bob b View Post
                                I do my homework, but apparently you don't or you wouldn't have chosen such a subject as the molecular evidence.

                                If you think that this is the best evidence that all life has descended from a hypothetical primitive protocell please explain to us dummies why the top experts in this field believe that this task would be impossible because of the potential of simpler creatures to "trade genes" back and forth between different lines of descent by way of horizontal gene transfer.

                                There are other reasons but this should do for starters.
                                Doesn't the fact that they can trade genes argue for a common ancestor? A gene is a pretty complex protein and seperate creations are unlikely to use the same "hardware".
                                "Those who have crossed
                                With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
                                Remember us--if at all--not as lost
                                Violent souls, but only
                                As the hollow men
                                The stuffed men." ... T.S. Eliot

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X