The evidence for Evolution.

[Speedwell]

Would 'evolutionary theory' include origins of life on earth?

No, it would not. Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of self-replicating life forms. How these came to be is a different field of study.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would agree that with your postulate that if we agree there are definitely adaptive changes within a species that over extremely long periods of time they might add up significantly. I'm not sure that the vastness of the fossil record alone clearly shows that the transitional forms offers us a slam dunk that proves those adaptive in species changes explains the plethora of species we have on hand...

It's worth remembering that all creatures are transitional, in as much as evolution is a continuous process.

In investigating transitional species, one selects representatives of the distinguishable start and end points one is interested in (e.g. non-flying to/from flying, land-based to/from water-based, brachiating to/from bipedal, etc.), and then looks for creatures that have phenotypes showing intermediate or transitional features. So they're transitional with respect to the particular features under consideration.

... I don't think evolutionary science is anywhere near the point we have progressed with physics, chemistry or astronomy. Perhaps the brightest tool for panning this out will be the DNA research but it may turn out to be a double edged sword. Empirical evidence I believe is lacking.

Molecular genetics (DNA research) has already given evolutionary science a statistical rigour approaching that of the other physical sciences.

Take the finches that I mentioned with respect to the series of changes you potulate would happen over time. During the drought season it is true they adapted with beak size changes to their environment but as soon as el-nono brought back a series of rainy seasons their beak sizes returned to normal.

This is an effect known as 'Sisyphean evolution' which probably makes the finches a less than ideal example of radiative evolution; however, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of classic examples of radiative evolution in the Galapagos, that don't have this constraint; in birds, mammals, insects, reptiles, plants, etc. (I just watched a couple of documentaries on the Galapagos by David Attenborough).

So the question is whether there always exists a upward trend of "positive" changes that make up a series that would lead to transitional forms.

It's not clear what you mean by an 'upward' trend of 'positive' changes, but I hope it was simply expressing a clear trend towards features typical of the chosen transition end-point exemplar, rather than a value judgement.

 

[dad]

No, it would not. Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of self-replicating life forms. How these came to be is a different field of study.

So where would you like to draw the line for what evolution covers? Obviously it was in your imagination, long before man existed. Trying to suggest similar skulls of ape like creatures were man is akin to malicious slander, not knowledge. Same with assumptions bout genetics etc. Remember to preach honestly here. The pretence of some connection to truth or reality is offensive.

 

[SteveB28]

Would 'evolutionary theory' include origins of life on earth?

No. And I feel confident that this has been explained to you before.

But continue with the wilful ignorance....

If so you have precisely none at all. If all you mean is mutating bacteria today or some such, well, you need a lot of godless imagination to contort that into creation of life on earth.

EVIDENCE....it's called evidence....



.

 

[Speedwell]

So where would you like to draw the line for what evolution covers?

I just told you: evolution has to do with self-replicating organisms.

Obviously it was in your imagination, long before man existed. Trying to suggest similar skulls of ape like creatures were man is akin to malicious slander, not knowledge. Same with assumptions bout genetics etc. Remember to preach honestly here. The pretense of some connection to truth or reality is offensive.

I wasn't "preaching," just giving you a definition.

 

[dad]

No, it would not. Evolutionary theory assumes the existence of self-replicating life forms. How these came to be is a different field of study.

Well, if they say we came from the same parentage as flatworms, then, yes, it does, basically. Believers should not try to justify such Satanic fibbing.

 

[Speedwell]

Well, if they say we came from the same parentage as flatworms, then, yes, it does, basically. Believers should not try to justify such Satanic fibbing.

What do you have against flatworms? Why would you despise any of God's creatures? You think God made us from a handful of dust; why is that better than God making us from another living creature?

 

[dad]

No. And I feel confident that this has been explained to you before.

The cowardly game that some advocates of Satanscience play, is to pretend that saying we share ancestors with a flatworm is better than saying we came from a thermal vent.

EVIDENCE....it's called evidence....

Stop pretending your religion has some.

 

[dad]

I just told you: evolution has to do with self-replicating organisms.I wasn't "preaching," just giving you a definition.

If you extend that to include organisms that are responsible for man, then you are preaching a sick religion.

 

[dad]

What do you have against flatworms?

No more than I have something aganst cow dung. My issue is with the conduits of hell, that preach man came from such things.

I think all of God's critters are amazing and well designed. Worms have their place, it is not, however, as Creator!

 

[Speedwell]

No more than I have something aganst cow dung. My issue is with the conduits of hell, that preach man came from such things.

I think all of God's critters are amazing and well designed. Worms have their place, it is not, however, as Creator!

So your god is capable of creating man from dust, but powerless to create us from a precursor primate? The god I believe created us is not limited in that way.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Great. So your opinion of what 'understanding evolution' is, would be to get submerged in unproven fantasies with no proof or support whatsoever. Great example of what evolution actually is...belief based godless idiocy.

dad, we all know that this is beyond your understanding. When you care to give it a serious try then I will gladly help you. Evolution, in case you didn't know, neither endorses or negates the existence of gods, just like gravity.

 

[dad]

So your god is capable of creating man from dust, but powerless to create us from a precursor primate? The god I believe created us is not limited in that way.

Right, God cannot lie.

 

[Speedwell]

Right, God cannot lie.

Right. And you arrogate godlike powers to yourself and so cannot be wrong about your interpretation of scripture.

 

[SteveB28]

Right, God cannot lie.

But men can, right?

And that's who wrote your beloved texts......men.



.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So where would you like to draw the line for what evolution covers?

Evolution begins where abiogenesis ends.

Abiogenesis is the processes that produced the earliest form of life (in this context, replication with heritable variation). This may well have been strands of RNA that could replicate themselves.

The pretence of some connection to truth or reality is offensive.

The connection to truth and reality is the vast amount of observational evidence the conclusions are based on.

 

[dad]

Evolution begins where abiogenesis ends.

Abiogenesis is the processes that produced the earliest form of life (in this context, replication with heritable variation). This may well have been strands of RNA that could replicate themselves.

The connection to truth and reality is the vast amount of observational evidence the conclusions are based on.

Merry Christmas. Good to see humor is not dead.

To summarize, then, the ancestor to a flatworm, you believe was our kin also. The evidence for that belief is..?

 

[dad]

But men can, right?

And that's who wrote your beloved texts......men.



.

Impossible. Man could not fortell the days till Jesus came thousands of years in advance, the virgin birth, the town, the method of death, that his robes would be gambled for, that He would rise from the dead, and etc etc.

 

[dad]

Right. And you arrogate godlike powers to yourself and so cannot be wrong about your interpretation of scripture.

Belief in God creating like He says he did is none of that garbage actually. Rather, it is what God demands of man.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Merry Christmas. Good to see humor is not dead.

To summarize, then, the ancestor to a flatworm, you believe was our kin also. The evidence for that belief is..?

Common genetic heritage.