Evolution and christanity.

[lesliedellow]

When was the last time you met a chimpanzee and had a nice conversation with him in at least basic English? After all these millions (or should it be billions?) of years they should have the conversational skills of at least a 2-year old. That would prove some evolution.

And why should they have the conversational skills of a two year old? Evolution by natural selection implies no such thing.

Evolution is a joke, a hoax, and complete deception without a shred of genuine proof. The so-called "scientific evidence" is false because it begins with a hypothesis and then tries to find evidence, rather than let the evidence lead to the hypothesis (as true science does).

First off, science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in testable theories. Second, real science formulates hypotheses which try to account for what can be observed, and then it goes back to nature to see if what that hypothesis implies is born out by further observations. If it is, then the hypothesis becomes an accepted theory.

 

[Job8]

And why should they have the conversational skills of a two year old? Evolution by natural selection implies no such thing.

Evolution by natural selection claims that human beings descended from apes (in plain English), and is an on-going process. Therefore, if there is any truth to it, one should be able to go into the jungles of Africa and find chimpanzees having evolved to the level of a 2-yr old, and who can speak basic English.

First off, science doesn't deal in proofs. It deals in testable theories...

There you go. The testable theory should be tested by checking out the evolution of chimpanzees, apes, gorillas, etc. to see to what degree they have become human. Can one chat with a gorilla and have a dialogue in a human language (even an African language)?

If that cannot be established, then THIS IS A TOTALLY BOGUS THEORY. Jane Goodall spent 55 years with chimpanzees, but did she teach even one of them to converse in English? And were they able to do so?

 

[food4thought]

You believe in micro but not macro which makes no sense to me.

And how otherwise intelligent people, those who really study evolution for a living, can actually believe that random gradual mutations can account for the complexity of the systems that comprise living things (the digestive system, circulatory system, nervous system, etc.) makes no sense to me. All these systems require multiple complex organs that alone serve no evolutionary purpose.

Think about it a thousand smaller details later add up to something very different from the original.

I have. Problems abound. Gradual changes would lead to the individuals being selected against in breeding halfway through the process, because the partial change would in many cases be detrimental to the individual surviving long enough to breed, and pass along the trait to the next generation so the process could continue.

We also know that many animals are VERY selective in choosing a mate, and any visual change would almost certainly be selected against in the competition for mates in many cases.

Plus I don't see how a designer is more reasonable than something such as evolution something that has been studied and studied to death.

Which is understandable, since you apparently can't see how unreasonable many ToE assumptions are.

The amount of evidence is unreal.

Quantity does not equal quality. Also, evidence against macro-evolution is pretty abundant.

This is not the place for debate. I am done.

 

[lesliedellow]

Evolution by natural selection claims that human beings descended from apes (in plain English), and is an on-going process. Therefore, if there is any truth to it, one should be able to go into the jungles of Africa and find chimpanzees having evolved to the level of a 2-yr old, and who can speak basic English.

The claptrap which is to be heard from creationists beggars belief sometimes. If Evolution is true (which it is) then if you go into the jungles of Africa, what you should find is a species (chimps) which have evolved in such a way as to be well suited to their environment. Nothing more than that, nothing less than that.

There you go. The testable theory should be tested by checking out the evolution of chimpanzees, apes, gorillas, etc. to see to what degree they have become human. Can one chat with a gorilla and have a dialogue in a human language (even an African language)?

Please see above, and please find out what the Theory of Evolution actually says, before continuing to make a complete fool of yourself.

 

[dcalling]

The claptrap which is to be heard from creationists beggars belief sometimes. If Evolution is true (which it is) then if you go into the jungles of Africa, what you should find is a species (chimps) which have evolved in such a way as to be well suited to their environment. Nothing more than that, nothing less than that.

So you saw a chimp, and you think the chimp evolved to suit the environment.... There is no difference to that saw the same chimp and think it is created to suite some environment. So I can have the same conclusion that I saw you and me are alike and we must be from the same ancestor.

A better question is, why is bacteria evolution plateaus? Does that show evolution or just mutation within the given constraint eventually exhaust its permutations?

 

[DaisyDay]

So you saw a chimp, and you think the chimp evolved to suit the environment.... There is no difference to that saw the same chimp and think it is created to suite some environment. So I can have the same conclusion that I saw you and me are alike and we must be from the same ancestor.

A better question is, why is bacteria evolution plateaus? Does that show evolution or just mutation within the given constraint eventually exhaust its permutations?

You should know that bacteria aren't "a" species any more than plants are "a" species.

 

[dcalling]

You should know that bacteria aren't "a" species any more than plants are "a" species.

My original sentence is "A better question is, why is bacteria evolution plateaus? Does that show evolution or just mutation within the given constraint eventually exhaust its permutations?", wondering where did you see "'a' species"?

 

[lesliedellow]

So you saw a chimp, and you think the chimp evolved to suit the environment.... There is no difference to that saw the same chimp and think it is created to suite some environment. So I can have the same conclusion that I saw you and me are alike and we must be from the same ancestor.

There are good reasons for believing Evolution to be true which have nothing to do with how well a species is fitted to its environment. For example:

"The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans."

It might surprise you to know who the author of that quote is.

better question is, why is bacteria evolution plateaus? Does that show evolution or just mutation within the given constraint eventually exhaust its permutations?

The evolution of bacteria has not plateaued. Haven't you heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

 

[dcalling]

There are good reasons for believing Evolution to be true which have nothing to do with how well a species is fitted to its environment. For example:

"The same mistakes in the same [pseudo]gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It’s hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans."
It might surprise you to know who the author of that quote is.

Did you see the big "IF" in the statement? It might also surprise you how close human and fruit fly DNA are That is why the whole evolution is just a theory, something waiting to be proven. There is no experiment today that can show how those changes that are out of bound of normal mutation parameters (i.e. show me the step by step change that you have to do to make chimp DNA human DNA, and prove it in experiment).

The evolution of bacteria has not plateaued. Haven't you heard of antibiotic resistant bacteria?

bacterias change change, within their designed parameters. Checkout the real experiment that has been going on for decades, where we try to observe evolution of e.coli. It indeed plateaued, which indicates pre-set parameters of DNA (just like a program where we can set parameters to affect behavior).

 

[lesliedellow]

Did you see the big "IF" in the statement? It might also surprise you how close human and fruit fly DNA are.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. 30% of my DNA is identical to that of a lettuce. So what? That fact can hardly be said to be inconsistent with common descent. As for the "big IF", as you put it, the whole point of the paragraph is that the stated hypothesis is by far the easiest way of accounting for what has been observed.

bacterias change change, within their designed parameters. Checkout the real experiment that has been going on for decades, where we try to observe evolution of e.coli. It indeed plateaued, which indicates pre-set parameters of DNA (just like a program where we can set parameters to affect behavior).

Bacteria change if they have need to change. If they reach a point where they are well adapted to their environment, and that environment does not change, then evolution will come to a halt util something happens to make them ill adapted again.

 

[dcalling]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least. 30% of my DNA is identical to that of a lettuce. So what? That fact can hardly be said to be inconsistent with common descent. As for the "big IF", as you put it, the whole point of the paragraph is that the stated hypothesis is by far the easiest way of accounting for what has been observed.

That is my point, just observation alone is not enough. Show me the step by step change that you have to do to make chimp DNA human DNA, and prove it in experiment, that is science, that I can believe

Bacteria change if they have need to change. If they reach a point where they are well adapted to their environment, and that environment does not change, then evolution will come to a halt util something happens to make them ill adapted again.

"Need to change"??!! The theory of evolution is that all mutations are random and the fittest survive. "Need to change" almost sounds like a design decision

 

[lesliedellow]

That is my point, just observation alone is not enough. Show me the step by step change that you have to do to make chimp DNA human DNA, and prove it in experiment, that is science, that I can believe

Science is a process of looking for a hypothesis which adequately accounts for what can be observed, and then checking that hypothesis against further observations. Science doesn't deal in proofs. Just theories which are accepted because they have explained, and continue to explain, the data.

"Need to change"??!! The theory of evolution is that all mutations are random and the fittest survive. "Need to change" almost sounds like a design decision

The theory of evolution is that all mutations are random, in a certain sense, and natural selection selects for the ones which will enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. No design decisions required.

 

[Troy Rambo]

All my life I had trouble believing that the stories such as Noah’s Ark and the creation of the earth in seven days were true because of the supernatural activity. I even considered that Jesus may have existed but the stories in the Old Testament were most likely false. But I have come across scripture that gave me some insight into the truth of these stories. You see, Jesus endorsed at least two events that I know of in the book of Genesis:


Matthew 24:37. “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood , people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered into the Ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.”


Luke 17:32. “Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.”


An interesting fact about these verses is that Jesus wasn’t focused on the supernatural activity to prove God’s power or even that Genesis is true. Instead He told these stories to teach us moral truths.


But nevertheless, He endorsed these stories to be true. Therefore, you can logically reason that if these two stories are true, then the whole book of Genesis is also true, including the creation in seven days. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, then the earth and universe was created in seven days.

 

[PureTruth7]

http://www.nazarenemedia.net/uploads/8/1/0/5/8105580/serie_theevidence.pdf

This is all you need to destroy the theory of evolution..

 

[dcalling]

Science is a process of looking for a hypothesis which adequately accounts for what can be observed, and then checking that hypothesis against further observations. Science doesn't deal in proofs. Just theories which are accepted because they have explained, and continue to explain, the data.

Hypothesis has to be proofed by repeatable experiments, else they stay hypothesis or "faith". Do we have repeatable experiments that show humans are indeed evolved from apes?

I think many people who believe in evolution today is based on their faith, or pressure from others, since they want to be with the majority.

The theory of evolution is that all mutations are random, in a certain sense, and natural selection selects for the ones which will enhance an organism's ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. No design decisions required.

In this case why after decades, the experiments shows e.coli mutation plateaued? Shouldn't they pick up pace with all that random mutation? Isn't facts interesting

 

[lesliedellow]

Hypothesis has to be proofed by repeatable experiments, else they stay hypothesis or "faith".

No, they have to be consistent with the data, which creation in six days is not, but evolution is.

In this case why after decades, the experiments shows e.coli mutation plateaued? Shouldn't they pick up pace with all that random mutation? Isn't facts interesting

Shall I repeat myself? Organisms evolve when they are under environmental pressure to do so. Either that, or they become extinct. So long as they are well adapted to their environment there will be no pressure causing them to evolve (or become extinct).

 

[Blades]

Do you believe that evolution is accurate and true yes or no and why? I for one see evolution as true because of scientific evidence.

You will find that if you research the Creation verses Evolution debate anywhere on Planet Earth you will come across a theme that keeps on repeating itself and that is the Scientific Evidence Evolution side keeps on making Assumptions that cannot be backed up with Scientific Evidence because these assumptions cannot be tested, and the more you research this debate the more often you will see this for yourself.
Fortunately I had a first hand experience with the Lord God of Hosts 25 years ago, and because there is no deception with him I was left in no Doubt about the reality of God and his creative power, for me researching the debate really only backed up what I already know. Creation is the truth what many Human beings cannot understand is that God created Time for us to exist in, but that he actualy exists outside of Time.... Not Doctor Who....but truly a Time Lord, an all Powerfull one.
Just like the Holy Scriptures say 1000 years can be as a Day for him, and he is the Ancient of Days

 

[dcalling]

No, they have to be consistent with the data, which creation in six days is not, but evolution is.

I wonder what data evolution is consistent of? When I repeatedly ask show me the proof, the repeatable experiments, none shows up, we can't even create a self replicating RNA.

And the bible uses "day" in different ways, many of the "day" means year as it has been proven, and God rest his work on the 7th day to when? Do we really know what time is? Did we observe that time can be relative by modern science?

Shall I repeat myself? Organisms evolve when they are under environmental pressure to do so. Either that, or they become extinct. So long as they are well adapted to their environment there will be no pressure causing them to evolve (or become extinct).

You just showed yourself to be on the wrong foot of theory of evolution again. The DNA mutation is RANDOM!!! they don't have a mind of their own. They have no idea what is "pressure".

For example, if the environment is good, the mutation won't stop (that is evolution), instead both good and bad mutation will be able to survive, so under good environments all survives. Under bad environment, the bad mutations die. They don't have a mind on their own (you are almost inferring that there is a designer).

 

[lesliedellow]

You just showed yourself to be on the wrong foot of theory of evolution again. The DNA mutation is RANDOM!!! they don't have a mind of their own. They have no idea what is "pressure".

Find a text book, read up on what is meant by natural selection, and then come back to me having at least some idea what you are talking about. My knowledge of biology might be limited, but yours is non-existent.

 

[dcalling]

Find a text book, read up on what is meant by natural selection, and then come back to me having at least some idea what you are talking about. My knowledge of biology might be limited, but yours is non-existent.

Well, to prove that Mutations are random, I went online and think I can find evidences easily (because I grow up an atheist and thought I know evolution very well).

To my amazement, even though traditional Darwinism calls for random mutation, and this belief is still the majority in popular science (see http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IIIC1aRandom.shtml, Mutation are random, and also wiki on evolution, and this PBS article http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html, and many more), modern science has found more and more evidence that those might not (http://www.wired.com/2014/01/evolution-evolves-under-pressure/ this is still a big controversy because what it implies).

Basically modern science has found evidence of the cells can be aware of the stress And do you know why it is so controversial when it was first published? Because it clearly calls a conscientious evolution (something intelligence in it, when modern secular science tried their best to take out the intelligence part from evolution).

So science will actually show the existence of God, or point us to that direction, when it advances enough, as in Romans 1:20
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."