Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

DerelictJunction · Oct 8, 2015

TheBear said:
It's no use. Anything and everything will be used to avoid answering this direct question. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. I certainty hope the poster has some modicum of honesty. We'll see.....

I understand the frustration, but commenting negatively on the personal characteristics of the believers on this forum will get the thread shutdown.

TheBear · Oct 8, 2015

My comment was neutral, giving the poster a chance to prove me wrong. I am always hopeful.

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
No one is presuming that. What was your reason for bringing it up?

You were talking about presuming things.

That would be the hypothesis. We are not done with observations yet. Why don't you want to follow the scientific method?
Again you feel you must completely bypass the scientific method despite your complaint that the theory of evolution does not follow it. Do you have a problem with following the scientific method?

I'm following the scientific method.

A question has been asked, a request has been made probably well over a hundred times now. The question remains, the request is the same. Is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

The issue remains the same.

Since you asked this question and did not complain about the observations, can I assume you are ready to move on to further observations from more recent research?
However, your reluctance to follow the scientific method urges me to give you one more chance to critique the observations that I have presented thus far. Do you have any problems with the current observations reiterated below?

Observation 1: Some individuals within a population survive and produce offspring better than other individuals in that same population.
Observation 2: Capabilities of individuals (speed, camouflage, resistance to disease, beak size and strength..etc) differ between individuals in a population.
Observation 3: The differences in capabilities in individuals in a population cause differences in survival ability and offspring production.
Observation 4: Offspring of individuals are more likely to have capabilities on the level of their parents rather than capabilities on the level of other individuals within the same population.

None of these address the repeated request for the ongoing issue. Present the evidence for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. Your observations do not offer the first bit of evidence, based on the scientific method. And once again, the scientific method.....

Where's the experimentation related to the HOW, the process, in your observations?

crjmurray · Oct 8, 2015

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

TheBear said:
It's no use. Anything and everything will be used to avoid answering this direct question. Maybe I'll be proved wrong. I certainty hope the poster has some modicum of honesty. We'll see.....

We'll see if you, or anyone else will actually offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process which produced pine trees and humans from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Do you have any evidence to offer?

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

DerelictJunction said:
I understand the frustration, but commenting negatively on the personal characteristics of the believers on this forum will get the thread shutdown.

And I do believe that's the goal of some.

ecco · Oct 8, 2015

SkyWriting said:
One interesting theory is that the entire globe operated as a lifeform.

I would use the term LifeSource.

SkyWriting said:
Rather than life starting in one spot, it was more of an evolution of the global patterns of chemical exchange which
spawned multiple patterns of systematic movement and replenishment, which eventually
changed to reproduction.

I agree with this much more than the concept of "everything came from one single cell".

Astrophile · Oct 8, 2015

justlookinla said:
Is there evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW, the process, whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

Do you accept
(1) that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old;
(2) that life began on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago; and
(3) that every living thing is connected with the earliest living things by an unbroken chain of parents and offspring, that there are no gaps in the lineages?

If you do not accept these three facts, what do you believe about the age of the Earth, the age of the first life forms, and the assumption that every living thing has or had at least one parent?

The IbanezerScrooge · Oct 8, 2015

Prediction: Unless someone can produce an experiment in which a pine tree is morphed into a human being through a series of successive steps justlookinla will not accept anything as evidence for the common ancestry of all living things.

Prove me wrong.

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 8, 2015

justlookinla said:
We'll see if you, or anyone else will actually offer evidence, based on the scientific method, for the HOW

The evidence was laid out for you in the previous thread that was shut down.
Why start a new one when your questions were already answered?

ecco · Oct 8, 2015

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Prediction: Unless someone can produce an experiment in which a pine tree is morphed into a human being through a series of successive steps justlookinla will not accept anything as evidence for the common ancestry of all living things.

Prove me wrong.

Here is a picture of a proto-human mating with a pine tree.

464721143-man-standing-behind-a-ponderosa-pine-tree-gettyimages.jpg

Here is a picture of a human being emerging from the womb of the mother pine.

No intermediate steps required.

essentialsaltes · Oct 8, 2015

justlookinla said:
Sure, no problem with that. Big beaked finches and small beaked finches, peppered moths and non-peppered moths would be examples, IMO.

Great! In the case of the peppered moths, the black variety has been tracked down to "one core sequence variant", so that the researchers conclude "Industrial melanism in British peppered moths has a singular and recent mutational origin."

A single mutational event (the HOW!) has produced a variation, leading to two different populations of very similar creatures.

The IbanezerScrooge · Oct 8, 2015

ecco said:
Here is a picture of a proto-human mating with a pine tree.

Here is a picture of a human being emerging from the womb of the mother pine.

No intermediate steps required.

Astounding!

mickiio · Oct 8, 2015

Astrophile said:
Do you accept
(1) that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old;
(2) that life began on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago; and
(3) that every living thing is connected with the earliest living things by an unbroken chain of parents and offspring, that there are no gaps in the lineages?

If you do not accept these three facts, what do you believe about the age of the Earth, the age of the first life forms, and the assumption that every living thing has or had at least one parent?

Wait ...wait? Facts??? Do you know the difference between a theory and a fact?

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 8, 2015

mickiio said:
Wait ...wait? Facts??? Do you know the difference between a theory and a fact?

Do you?

Scientific theory- A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

Scientific theories explain facts.

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

Astrophile said:
Do you accept
(1) that the Earth is about 4.54 billion years old;
(2) that life began on Earth at least 3.5 billion years ago; and
(3) that every living thing is connected with the earliest living things by an unbroken chain of parents and offspring, that there are no gaps in the lineages?

If you do not accept these three facts, what do you believe about the age of the Earth, the age of the first life forms, and the assumption that every living thing has or had at least one parent?

I'll be glad to discuss these questions and issues in another thread. I'm still attempting to stick with the issue in this thread, the claim there's evidence, based on the scientific method, of HOW/the process whereby pine trees and humans were produced from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago.

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

JonFromMinnesota said:
The evidence was laid out for you in the previous thread that was shut down.
Why start a new one when your questions were already answered?

Please see post #1 in this thread which in which I am taking your points from the closed thread and commenting on them one step at a time. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually respond to my response to you in post #1.

Thanks.

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

The IbanezerScrooge said:
Prediction: Unless someone can produce an experiment in which a pine tree is morphed into a human being through a series of successive steps justlookinla will not accept anything as evidence for the common ancestry of all living things.

Prove me wrong.

All you have to do is offer evidence, and apply the scientific method to it and it'll either pass or fail.

So far, you've not offered the alleged evidence.

justlookinla · Oct 8, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
Great! In the case of the peppered moths, the black variety has been tracked down to "one core sequence variant", so that the researchers conclude "Industrial melanism in British peppered moths has a singular and recent mutational origin."

A single mutational event (the HOW!) has produced a variation, leading to two different populations of very similar creatures.

All you have is moths producing moths, a far cry from pine trees and humans being produced by some unknown process from an alleged single life form (unknown) of long ago. I ask again, where's the evidence for the process, based on the scientific method, which produced both the pine tree and human from this unknown life form?

JonFromMinnesota · Oct 8, 2015

justlookinla said:
Please see post #1 in this thread which in which I am taking your points from the closed thread and commenting on them one step at a time. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually respond to my response to you in post #1.

Thanks.

I did. You only attempted to address comparative anatomy. You don't even address it clearly. You skip doing the research into the source provided to you. Common ancestry part of the evidence for the how (genetic mutations and natural selection over generation after generation for many years).

You either don't want to follow the scientific method or you don't know how to.

If you'd like to attempt to address my post, explain why comparative anatomy doesn't explain the how.

Another Try At Examining Alleged Evidence For The Darwinian Process

Mild-Mannered Super Villian

NON-WOKED

Regular Member

The Bear. Not The Bull.

Regular Member

Regular Member

Poster

Newbie

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Poster

Stranger in a Strange Land

I can't believe what I'm hearing...

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads