toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[Selaphiel]

There are several icons of evolution, one being the origin of life, the various models of which don't support giving rise to life without artificial means being employed. The other icons of evolution also fall apart under scrutiny. The fossil record doesn't support it, the chicken eggs don't either. There might be some support for microevolution within species, but there isn't support for macroevolution (one species to another).

Abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE. It is interested in it perhaps, but it does not depend on it in any way or form. The only thing the theory of evolution describes is the diversification of life through genetic mutation and natural selection REGARDLESS of how life originated.

Micro/macroevolution is only a division of convenience, it is the same mechanism, the only difference is the time perspective. Macroevolution is basically a term for an accumulation of microevolutionary steps. Thus it is absurd to say that microevolution is a fact but macroevolution is not unless you can demonstrate an inherent limitation to the process of random genetic mutation and natural selection.

How does the fossil record not support the ToE? And how do chicken eggs disprove the ToE?

 

[no avatar]

What does any of this mean, specifically?

maybe he was scared of the dark, too.

The peacock eye scared him because of the complexity of the eye. He commented that evolution would only work when the issue is non-complex. The eye, just the eye, is a highly complex organ. Had he known about DNA, he probably would never have proposed evolution.

 

[no avatar]

ToE is NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!!!!!!
it is religion uses icons, not science. Dont mix your terms.

Two false concepts in the first sentence!

You made some false assertions, vague ones at that.

Why dont you name something specific?

The origin of life is part of the theory of evolution! Where have you been?

 

[no avatar]

Abiogenesis is not a part of the ToE. It is interested in it perhaps, but it does not depend on it in any way or form. The only thing the theory of evolution describes is the diversification of life through genetic mutation and natural selection REGARDLESS of how life originated.

Micro/macroevolution is only a division of convenience, it is the same mechanism, the only difference is the time perspective. Macroevolution is basically a term for an accumulation of microevolutionary steps. Thus it is absurd to say that microevolution is a fact but macroevolution is not unless you can demonstrate an inherent limitation to the process of random genetic mutation and natural selection.

How does the fossil record not support the ToE? And how do chicken eggs disprove the ToE?

Abiogenesis is part of it because without life, there can't be diversification! You take God out of the picture and there wouldn't be life for it to be diverse. Evolution depends on there already being life.

While micro- and macro-evolution is ultimately the same thing, micro-evolution implies changes/mutations within a species. Macro-evolution implies changes from one species to another.

The fossil record shows a huge gap from one-celled organisms to an explosion of organisms with billions of cells. There is nothing in between, which was one of Darwin's concerns, also. He was hopeful that the fossil record would develop to show the multi levels in between one-celled and billion-celled organisms, but it hasn't.

I wasn't really meaning chicken eggs, I was talking about the embryos that they always compared to show that humans went through the same stages as other animals in their embryonic life, but as we all know, those embryo studies were faked.

 

[taikoo]

Of course you can't prove a negative, but life is a positive. They have not been able to show any models wherein life was created (without divine influence) unless artificial means were employed.

As for #3, that is true, that is the claim of Christians, and that is the only thing that has proven true thus far. But evolutionists would have you believe that life popped in out of nowhere, also (since their models don't hold up under scrutiny), just without a creator.

Originally Posted by no avatar View Post
Life can't just pop in out of nowhere. Science has proven it can't. No life, no evolution

.

]

Of course you can't prove a negative, but life is a positive. They have not been able to show any models wherein life was created (without divine influence) unless artificial means were employed.

So why even try to talk about proving a negative in the first place?
Your statement that "life is a positive" is completely meaningless
and in any case unrelated to your statements about science proving life cant pop out of nowhere. Just give that up, it was pure nonsense first to last.

And no, it has not been demonstrated how life began but that in itself is not a demonstration of the supernatural. All manner of very complex organic molecules do self organize, and nobody knows what the possibilities are.


A

s for #3, that is true, that is the claim of Christians, and that is the only thing that has proven true thus far. As for #3, that is true, that is the claim of Christians, and that is the only thing that has proven true thus far. But evolutionists would have you believe that life popped in out of nowhere, also (since their models don't hold up under scrutiny), just without a creator.[/ (since their models don't hold up under scrutiny), just without a creator.[/

yes i would say it is proven and needs no further discussion that CHRISTIANS believe life just popped up, along with the rest of the universe out of nowhere.

But evolutionists would have you believe that life popped in out of nowhere, also (since their models don't hold up under scrutiny), just without a creator.[/

Do you want to learn something? if not lets not continue this.

This idea is totally wrong.

Origin of life is not part of the ToE
The ideas about abiogenisis are nothing like "popped out of nowhere" anymore than we think a river appeared out of nowhere, or a crystal just appeared. This is seriously silly of you.

As for what ideas do or dont hold up under waht scrutiny, your demonstrated unfamiliarity with what the ToE even is disqualifies you from making any meaningful comment on what "evolutionists" ( a rather silly term) would or would not do.

 

[taikoo]

The peacock eye scared him because of the complexity of the eye. He commented that evolution would only work when the issue is non-complex. The eye, just the eye, is a highly complex organ. Had he known about DNA, he probably would never have proposed evolution.

what darwin did or did not understand is pretty irrelevant a century and a half alter.

and your second guessing is even more meaningless

 

[taikoo]

The origin of life is part of the theory of evolution! Where have you been?

Getting a masters degree in zoology. where have YOU been?
you are wrong on this and most everything else you say.

 

[taikoo]

Abiogenesis is part of it because without life, there can't be diversification! You take God out of the picture and there wouldn't be life for it to be diverse. Evolution depends on there already being life.

Every theory on earth depends on their being pre existing matter and natural law. That does not mean taht the origin of the universe is part of ToE, and part of every other law and theory!


While micro- and macro-evolution is ultimately the same thing, micro-evolution implies changes/mutations within a species. Macro-evolution implies changes from one species to another.

So?



The fossil record shows a huge gap from one-celled organisms to an explosion of organisms with billions of cells. There is nothing in between, which was one of Darwin's concerns, also. He was hopeful that the fossil record would develop to show the multi levels in between one-celled and billion-celled organisms, but it hasn't.


Darwin again, and science of 150 years ago.

Did you know there are gaps also in the history of WW2? So does that somehow invalidate any history of the outline of the war? if so why?




I wasn't really meaning chicken eggs, I was talking about the embryos that they always compared to show that humans went through the same stages as other animals in their embryonic life, but as we all know, those embryo studies were faked.

You said eggs, and now you are saying something else meaningless.
If you want to object to evolution, talk specifics.

And btw, even if one historian faked a document from ww2 does taht mean all documents about ww2 are fake, and that no history of WW2 has any validity? if so, why?

 

[Selaphiel]

Abiogenesis is part of it because without life, there can't be diversification! You take God out of the picture and there wouldn't be life for it to be diverse. Evolution depends on there already being life.

Yes, it depends on there being life. That is not the same as saying that it depends on abiogenesis is it? Life could have fallen down from the sky as far as evolution is concerned since the concern of the theory of evolution is describing both the processes behind the following diversification of life and attempt to establish an evolutionary lineage based on empirical evidence.

Ergo, ToE depends on there being life which is self-evident, not how it arose.

While micro- and macro-evolution is ultimately the same thing, micro-evolution implies changes/mutations within a species. Macro-evolution implies changes from one species to another.

This can be attacked both scientifically and philosophically. Can you demonstrate that there is a set of eternal substances called "species"? Is there some kind of limit to the DNA found within all the dog species that prevents it from altering beyond a point where it ceases to be what we call a dog?

The fossil record shows a huge gap from one-celled organisms to an explosion of organisms with billions of cells. There is nothing in between, which was one of Darwin's concerns, also. He was hopeful that the fossil record would develop to show the multi levels in between one-celled and billion-celled organisms, but it hasn't.

Luckily the ToE is not based on the fossil record alone. The fossil record is considered a bonus in this age of molecular biology. We have what we might call molecular "fossils" and molecular relationships between all species which demonstrates the shared ancestry of species.

The creatures from the era you say we have no fossils from do not fossilize easily since they are soft tissue creatures.

I wasn't really meaning chicken eggs, I was talking about the embryos that they always compared to show that humans went through the same stages as other animals in their embryonic life, but as we all know, those embryo studies were faked.

That is the kind of assertion that needs evidence. I know people have claimed it is false, but they have been debunked a million times at least.

 

[Alate_One]

I didn't know that you had done that.

Selpahiel and I presented methods for falsification also.

We already see that sort of thing.

I looked at the list. Nearly all of them were references to creationist journals. Several were references to news articles and the only ones that were references to peer reviewed journals were from 1920 and 1950. Forgive me if I don't call that "evidence".

Scientists love to "upend the apple cart". Falsifying evolution would be a huge scientific discovery, people would fight each other to discover such a finding. If the creationist friends really had something, someone would be winning a nobel prize over it or at least publishing in a reputable journal. Many journals even like to publish controversial work, such as Nature.

So why is it all of these amazing discoveries are languishing on an obscure creationist website? Let me guess, there's a worldwide multigenerational atheistic conspiracy?

I don't believe that you would accept any evidence presented to you that demonstrated the things that you claim would falsify evolution.

If you had solid evidence for "those kind of things" rather than wishful thinking squinting at patterns in fossilized seashore and calling them human or horse footprints. Show us an incontrovertible mammalian skull or identifiable bone in the Cambrian or Ediacaran or before.

According to the YEC model of genesis, these things should be EVERYWHERE. All creatures lived at the same time so we should find everything all mixed together. Why do we have a progression?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

According to the YEC model of genesis, these things should be EVERYWHERE. All creatures lived at the same time so we should find everything all mixed together. Why do we have a progression?

Fossil's are/were sorted via a process called liquefaction which explains why most fossils are sorted yet there are anomalies as well.

 

[csuguy]

I haven't studied it enough to accept or reject it, although I do not accept it as a proper scientific theory. The prominent reason for this being that the core of the theory is unfalsifiable. It is a theory that concerns itself with the past, with unique historical events - this is outside the realms of proper science. Rather, the ToE is a philosophy that is based upon scientific evidence.

There are several issues with trying to come up with a theory of how the past looks. 1) The lack of evidence. The longer in the past you are talking about the less evidence there is. Of what we have, we don't know how representative our evidence is of the whole since the vast majority of it is gone forever. What we have maybe a minority representation.

2) Interpretation. Like any evidence and any philosophy, there are many ways to interpret things. This is evidenced within the evolutionary community by the fact that there are many different evolutionary models out there that try to come up with an outline of how things evolved, and they all differ on various points.

3) Filling in the gaps. This is perhaps the worst hit to the theory which is that they have to fill in the gaps in their data with their own ideas. They have to make generalizations. Unfortunately they have to do this since they are trying to talk about the past, and the only way for them to come up with many of their conclusions is to make presumptions about things. This is perhaps best witnessed in the matter of dating things. Before they can use a dating method, they assume a range for how old it is. They dating methods themselves seem to be formed around ideal, isolated, lab experiments in which whatever they are measuring have been isolated from outside interference. Fossils, however, have not had this luxury and so it seems fallacious to think that the lab results can properly take into account the unique environmental experiences of fossils. See Carbon Dating, for example, since (if I recall correctly) the carbon measured is based upon the atmosphere.

 

[taikoo]

Fossil's are/were sorted via a process called liquefaction which explains why most fossils are sorted yet there are anomalies as well.

What would be your explanation for why only a few creationists seem aware of this, and the world scientific community considers this stuff to be a groaner?

Why hasnt someone gotten a nobel and become the greatest scientist of all time with these amazing revelations?

 

[taikoo]

I haven't studied it enough to accept or reject it, although I do not accept it as a proper scientific theory. The prominent reason for this being that the core of the theory is unfalsifiable. It is a theory that concerns itself with the past, with unique historical events - this is outside the realms of proper science. Rather, the ToE is a philosophy that is based upon scientific evidence.

There are several issues with trying to come up with a theory of how the past looks. 1) The lack of evidence. The longer in the past you are talking about the less evidence there is. Of what we have, we don't know how representative our evidence is of the whole since the vast majority of it is gone forever. What we have maybe a minority representation.

2) Interpretation. Like any evidence and any philosophy, there are many ways to interpret things. This is evidenced within the evolutionary community by the fact that there are many different evolutionary models out there that try to come up with an outline of how things evolved, and they all differ on various points.

3) Filling in the gaps. This is perhaps the worst hit to the theory which is that they have to fill in the gaps in their data with their own ideas. They have to make generalizations. Unfortunately they have to do this since they are trying to talk about the past, and the only way for them to come up with many of their conclusions is to make presumptions about things. This is perhaps best witnessed in the matter of dating things. Before they can use a dating method, they assume a range for how old it is. They dating methods themselves seem to be formed around ideal, isolated, lab experiments in which whatever they are measuring have been isolated from outside interference. Fossils, however, have not had this luxury and so it seems fallacious to think that the lab results can properly take into account the unique environmental experiences of fossils. See Carbon Dating, for example, since (if I recall correctly) the carbon measured is based upon the atmosphere.

I haven't studied it enough to accept or reject it, although I do not accept it as a proper scientific theory.

Do you have a feel for how unreasonable you are here? The things you say about evolution certainly demonstrate that you have only the sketchiest idea about it, and what you do "know" clearly comes from creationist sites.

You are very clearly rejecting it, despite your near total unfamiliarity with the ToE or about science in general.

Regarding whether it is a "proper" theory, or falsifiable, it is considered by the world scientific community as one of the great unifying theories in science, and is accepted by virtually the entire educated population of the world as such.

How would you explain that you know so much more than people who dedicate their lives to science?

 

[Guyver]

Fossil's are/were sorted via a process called liquefaction which explains why most fossils are sorted yet there are anomalies as well.

Yes. Because the fossil record is enormously insufficient. That's just how it is.

 

[nicholsmom]

It is just you. A cook does simple chemistry, but they dont use a whole lot of theory. All theory in chemistry depends on atomic theory.

Falsifying evolution would be the greatest scientific discovery, possibly of all time.

I dont care to try to dwell on this, but what i said is so; that in falsifying deep time you would blow up most of physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry and geology, because its all integrated.

Gee, what happened with the formatting there? That was kinda weird.

Thanks for going through all of that for me. I agree that a mammal in the Cambrian layer would tend to falsify deep time and therefore evolution. I agree that we'd have to go back to the drawing board for lots of different things if this happened. However, I don't think you are right about the radiometric dating. Let me do a bit of research on my own and get back to you with a few more questions.
:e4e:

 

[The Barbarian]

My beliefs are still evolving.

Evolution does not exist independently from God.

Other than sin, what does?

 

[The Barbarian]

The origin of life is part of the theory of evolution! Where have you been?

That's a testable claim. Show us in Darwin's book, or in the Modern Synthesis (which is the modern version of evolutionary theory) where it makes predictions about the origin of life.

(Barbarian makes popcorn)

 

[Stripe]

discovery of a mechanism that limits the extent of genetic change possible

I've seen that done. :wave:

By an evolutionist. :noid:

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes. Because the fossil record is enormously insufficient. That's just how it is.

Let's test that belief. Name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and I'll see if we have a transitional between them.

You're on.