When did evolution begin?

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I was right. And your next post will be like the others.....devoid of evidence, choosing rather to make totally empty claims.

That is because you keep running away from a reasonable demand. What are you afraid of?

I don't mind pointing out that I am willing to give you all the evidence that you want. I get a kick out of you continually running away.

 

[Larniavc]

Yes, I was right. And your next post will be like the others.....devoid of evidence, choosing rather to make totally empty claims.

Why don't you just google 'common ancestor plant animal'. It will be a lot quicker for you to get the information you want.

 

[Shemjaza]

What evidence, based on the scientific method.

We have the pattern of genetics and fossils compatible with plants and animals diversifying and specialising.

Fossil and genetic samples can be repeatedly studied and compared to show the nested hierarchy of relatedness.

You're not addressing the impetus which created a pine tree and elephant from a common life form.



How? Why? What impetus? Based on the scientific method.

Survival and diversification. Tiny random individual mutations in species open up new possibilities for survival and diversification. This is trivially demonstrable on the small scale and is consistent with eh other evidence on the larger/longer scale.

There's no goal, just lots of little changes which were individually successful.

Please keep the focus on the claim that something created a pine tree and an elephant from the same life form. So far, there's only been Darwinist guesses.

We're at you bizarre definition of "guess" again.

When Christianity first took hold in the Roman empire, the language spoken was Latin... yet now people in France, Portugal, Romania and Italy can't easily understand each other, because the language slowly drifted apart and changed in all those places.

Species work in a similar way. All are drifting and changing and if they are separated then they can become significantly different.

 

[Aman777]

Define new varieties. If you use "kinds" then you do no understand the process.

Just as if you say Species, then we know that you do not understand God's Holy Word on the subject. There are 2 kinds His and Theirs. Did you know that?

 

[Aman777]

Just as if you say Species, then we know that you do not understand God's Holy Word on the subject. There are 2 kinds His and Theirs. Did you know that?

Just wanted to give you more information on the question. Can anyone tell us the difference between His and Their kinds in this verse?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Were there 2 Creations?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Just wanted to give you more information on the question. Can anyone tell us the difference between His and Their kinds in this verse?

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Were there 2 Creations?

Verse 25 just confirms/recaps verse 24, where the term "his" is used for the creation of all the creatures.

 

[justlookinla]

That is because you keep running away from a reasonable demand. What are you afraid of?

I don't mind pointing out that I am willing to give you all the evidence that you want. I get a kick out of you continually running away.

And your next post will have the same content of the last one. Which never includes evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Why don't you just google 'common ancestor plant animal'. It will be a lot quicker for you to get the information you want.

All I'd find is guesses and suppositions, nothing based on the scientific method. Unless you have something different?

 

[justlookinla]

We have the pattern of genetics and fossils compatible with plants and animals diversifying and specialising.

Fossil and genetic samples can be repeatedly studied and compared to show the nested hierarchy of relatedness.

We'd have common building blocks with indicators of design.

Survival and diversification. Tiny random individual mutations in species open up new possibilities for survival and diversification. This is trivially demonstrable on the small scale and is consistent with eh other evidence on the larger/longer scale.

There's no goal, just lots of little changes which were individually successful.

This is simply wishful thinking on your part. There is absolutely not one single smidgen of evidence, based on the scientific method, that random individual mutations produced both a pine tree and elephant from a life form of long ago.

We're at you bizarre definition of "guess" again.

What's 'bizarre' about it?

When Christianity first took hold in the Roman empire, the language spoken was Latin... yet now people in France, Portugal, Romania and Italy can't easily understand each other, because the language slowly drifted apart and changed in all those places.

Species work in a similar way. All are drifting and changing and if they are separated then they can become significantly different.

All I'm asking for is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the method of creation of both a pine tree and elephant from some common life form.

 

[Aman777]

Verse 25 just confirms/recaps verse 24, where the term "his" is used for the creation of all the creatures.

Not so but thanks for a good try. Can anyone else tell us the difference between His and Their kinds in Gen 1:25? If you don't understand the difference, you will NEVER understand HOW and WHEN prehistoric people inherited the unique, superior intelligence of Adam, which is like God's intelligence. Gen 3:22 Amen?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not so but thanks for a good try. Can anyone else tell us the difference between His and Their kinds in Gen 1:25? If you don't understand the difference, you will NEVER understand HOW and WHEN prehistoric people inherited the unique, superior intelligence of Adam, which is like God's intelligence. Gen 3:22 Amen?

Verse 25 is the fulfillment of verse 24. His, and their, are just possessive pronouns.

Genesis 1:24-25 King James Version

24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And (in fulfillment of verse 24) God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

 

[Larniavc]

All I'd find is guesses and suppositions, nothing based on the scientific method. Unless you have something different?

Here is a list of references from the wiki page for common decent.

References[edit]

1. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry (13 May 2010). "A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.". Nature 465 (7295): 219–222. doi:10.1038/nature09014.PMID 20463738.
2. ^ Jump up to:a b Steel, Mike; Penny, David (2010). "Origins of life: Common ancestry put to the test". Nature 465 (7295): 168–9.doi:10.1038/465168a. PMID 20463725.
3. Jump up^ Doolittle, WF (February 2000). "Uprooting the tree of life" (PDF).Scientific American 282 (6): 90–95.doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0200-90. PMID 10710791.
4. Jump up^ Glansdorff, N; Xu, Y; Labedan, B (2008). "The last universal common ancestor: emergence, constitution and genetic legacy of an elusive forerunner.". Biology direct 3 (1): 29. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-3-29. PMC 2478661. PMID 18613974.
5. Jump up^ Yoko Ohtomo, Takeshi Kakegawa, Akizumi Ishida, Toshiro Nagase, Minik T. Rosing (8 December 2013). "Evidence for biogenic graphite in early Archaean Isua metasedimentary rocks". Nature Geoscience. doi:10.1038/ngeo2025. Retrieved 9 Dec 2013.
6. Jump up^ Borenstein, Seth (13 November 2013). "Oldest fossil found: Meet your microbial mom". AP News. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
7. Jump up^ Noffke, Nora; Christian, Daniel; Wacey, David; Hazen, Robert M. (8 November 2013). "Microbially Induced Sedimentary Structures Recording an Ancient Ecosystem in the ca. 3.48 Billion-Year-Old Dresser Formation, Pilbara, Western Australia". Astrobiology (journal) 13 (12): 1103–24. doi:10.1089/ast.2013.1030.PMC 3870916. PMID 24205812. Retrieved 15 November 2013.
8. ^ Jump up to:a b c Darwin, C., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life", London, John Murrary, (1859) p. 490
9. Jump up^ J. S. Bromley, The new Cambridge modern history: The rise of Great Britain and Russia, 1688-1715/25, CUP Archive, 1970, ISBN 978-0-521-07524-4, pgs. 62-63.
10. Jump up^ Geoffrey Russell Richards Treasure, The making of modern Europe, 1648-1780, Taylor & Francis, 1985, ISBN 978-0-416-72370-0, pg. 142
11. Jump up^ C. Leon Harris, Evolution, genesis and revelations, with readings from Empedocles to Wilson, SUNY Press, 1981, ISBN 978-0-87395-487-7, pg. 107
12. Jump up^ Immanuel Kant and Werner S. Pluhar, Critique of Judgment, Hackett Publishing, 1987, ISBN 978-0-87220-025-8, p. 304: "Despite all the variety among these forms, they seem to have been produced according to a common archetype, and this analogy among them reinforces our suspicion that they are actually akin, produced by a common original mother."
13. Jump up^ Darwin, Erasmus (1818) [1795]. "Generation". Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life 1 (4th American ed.). Philadelphia: Edward Earle. p. 397 [§ 39.4.8]. Retrieved November 20, 2009.
14. Jump up^ Knight, Robin et al. (January 2001). "Rewiring the Keyboard: Evolvability of the Genetic Code". Nature Reviews Genetics 2 (1): 49–58. doi:10.1038/35047500. PMID 11253070.
15. Jump up^ Than, Ker (14 May 2010). "All Species Evolved From Single Cell, Study Finds". National Geographic Society. Retrieved 2011-10-30.
16. Jump up^ Yonezawa, Takahiro; Hasegawa, Masami (16 December 2010). "Was the universal common ancestry proved?". Nature 468 (7326): E9–E9. doi:10.1038/nature09482.
17. Jump up^ Theobald, D. L. (16 December 2010). "Theobald reply". Nature468 (7326): E10–E10. doi:10.1038/nature09483.
18. Jump up^ Theobald, D. L. (2011). "On universal common ancestry, sequence similarity, and phylogenetic structure: The sins of P-values and the virtues of Bayesian evidence". Biology Direct 6 (1): 60.doi:10.1186/1745-6150-6-60. PMC 3314578. PMID 22114984.
19. Jump up^ Theobald, Douglas (2004). "Prediction 1.3: Consilience of Independent Phylogenies". 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. TalkOrigins Foundation. Retrieved November 20, 2009.
20. Jump up^ Raven, Peter H. et al. (2005). Biology of Plants (7th rev. ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. ISBN 0-7167-6284-6. OCLC 183148564. [These vegetables were] all produced from a single species of plant (Brassica oleraca), a member of the mustard family.

Which of these references are unscientific and why? Or just pick one that you think is not scientific and explain 'why?'

 

[Oncedeceived]

You don't know what scientific evidence is. You claimed to have scientific evidence, what is your testable, which means falsifiable, hypothesis. I said nothing about the explanatory claim. I was pointing out your weakness.

First of all, not all science is falsifiable and testable doesn't mean falsifiable. We can test things and still not have them falsifiable. For instance, we could hypothesize that there are planets in our universe that have rings around them. We could observe in our universe Saturn that shows there is at least one planet that has rings and we know this strictly from observation, we observe rings. We can't test the rings, and we can't falsify the hypothesis however, because we don't know if there is more than one planet with rings. There is evidence that shows that there is one so perhaps there reasonably could be more but we can't know that with the technology we have now. That doesn't mean it isn't science. Observation is the central element in science.

The Scientific Process
A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
2. Make your hypothesis
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.

We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.

We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.

The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.

The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.

Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such.

From the link above:
One important thing to note is that human senses are subject to errors in perception e.g., optical illusions which can results in erroneous scientific observation. This is why scientific instruments were developed to improve and magnify human powers of observations like microscopes, cameras, telescopes, weight scales, computers, oscilloscopes, radio receivers etc. Emphasis mine. We see that we are not perceiving an illusion but actual elements of design. The only way this appearance (evidence) is an illusion is not by error in perceptions or optical illusions but that the design was produced by evolutionary processes which has not been shown by any evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We can and we have. It has been presented many many times here. Sadly you don't know what scientific evidence is and falsely rejected it.

I can help you to understand what is and what is not scientific evidence.

No, evidence for evolution has been given but no specific evidence that can show that evolution produces the apparent design in living organisms. I don't think you understand what scientific evidence entails and why it must not be a hand waving of unspecific evidence that is used as a blanket explanation for everything asked.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There is only a very very small handful. And in any large enough group you will have a few people that are willing to deceive themselves. You should ask yourself why none of these PhD's, that know how to publish a peer reviewed article, don't have any article in well respected journals opposing evolution.

AS usual you have misunderstood what the claims are and what is being discussed. I never said anything about opposing evolution. There are more than a few that disagree with Natural Selection producing the diversity we see in life. That doesn't mean they oppose evolution, it means that they really want evidence and specific evidence for what is seen in living organisms.

And you are laughably wrong. First I would like to see what you call "deliberate design". If it can be explained by natural processes then by definition it is not "deliberate design". Please the claim is "apparent design" not "deliberate" the reason it is called "apparent" is because a natural explanation has been found. You have also shown that you have no clue as to what scientific evidence is, but that goes without saying.

That is strange considering Richard Dawkins who has made the claims we are discussing does call it an illusion of deliberate design.

The world is divided into things that look as though somebody designed them (wings and wagon-wheels, hearts and televisions), and things that just happened through the unintended workings of physics (mountains and rivers, sand dunes, and solar systems)

See the exhibition “Darwin,”at the
American Museum of Natural History.
Mount Rushmore belonged firmly in the second category until the sculptor Gutzon Borglum carved it into the first. Charles Darwin moved in the other direction. He discovered a way in which the unaided laws of physics—the laws according to which things “just happen”—could, in the fullness of geologic time, come to mimic deliberate design. The illusion of design is so successful that to this day most Americans (including, significantly, many influential and rich Americans) stubbornly refuse to believe it is an illusion. To such people, if a heart (or an eye or a bacterial flagellum) looks designed, that’s proof enough that it is designed.

Now, if Dawkins claims that evolution and time can mimic deliberate design...it stands to reason the appearance is that it mimics deliberate design.[/QUOTE]

 

[Subduction Zone]

And your next post will have the same content of the last one. Which never includes evidence.

Yep, that is because you have shown time after time that you do not even understand the concept of scientific evidence. It seems that you are terrified to learn what scientific evidence is. I can help you. We do not even need to bring evolution into the lesson.

But both you and I know that you are too afraid to learn what scientific evidence is. You could make me "put up or shut up". Sadly you are too afraid to do so.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, that is because you have shown time after time that you do not even understand the concept of scientific evidence. It seems that you are terrified to learn what scientific evidence is. I can help you. We do not even need to bring evolution into the lesson.

But both you and I know that you are too afraid to learn what scientific evidence is. You could make me "put up or shut up". Sadly you are too afraid to do so.

I am not afraid to make you "put up or shut up". Provide the evidence that shows evolution mimics deliberate design in living organisms.

 

[Aman777]

Verse 25 is the fulfillment of verse 24. His, and their, are just possessive pronouns.

Genesis 1:24-25 King James Version

24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And (in fulfillment of verse 24) God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good."

His kind are the kinds which Jesus made with His Own Hands. Humankind was the FIRST creature shaped by the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus). Jesus made Adam on the 3rd Day. Humans are His kind. Gen 2:4-7

Their kinds are the kinds which were created and brought forth from the water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 These creatures, which included prehistoric people, were made by God (The Trinity). Some creatures, like birds, were made on the 5th Day by God (Trinity) and on the present 6th Day, by Jesus. These living beings, which science calls "Natural" beings, are called that because scientists don't want to give God credit for creating them so they call them natural creatures as if they magically appeared in the water. Abiogenesis or magical chemical generation is one of their favorites.

So be careful in thinking that Scripture has but one meaning. Dig a little deeper and you will find God's Truth which is the Truth in every way. Here's a little Truth. Cain married and produced children with a prehistoric woman on Adam's Earth and Noah's grandsons fulfilled the prophecy of Gen 6:4 (and also after that) on our Earth, by marrying and producing today's 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) with the prehistoric people who had been on our Planet for Millions of years BEFORE Noah arrived. Amen? God Bless you

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, I was right. And your next post will be like the others.....devoid of evidence, choosing rather to make totally empty claims.

You can't provide what just isn't there.

 

[justlookinla]

No, evidence for evolution has been given but no specific evidence that can show that evolution produces the apparent design in living organisms. I don't think you understand what scientific evidence entails and why it must not be a hand waving of unspecific evidence that is used as a blanket explanation for everything asked.

He's certainly failed, for a very long time now, to provide anything but scientific evidence for his claims. Empty claims seems to be a staple of those who embrace illusion of design.