proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Speedwell]

so if you will have a billion years the cat must be change into something that isnt a cat? are you sure about that?

The question was about a self-replicating molecule evolving into a cat.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Thanks for verifying that you don't understand what constitute evidence. Hint--It must include HOW it can happen. So far none of your OPINIONS have done that.

so, is it your opinion that quantum mechanics is not science? We have no idea HOW quantum tunnelling happens, nor radioactive decay but you are using the technology that operates on what we understand about these effects, even though we have no idea how or why it happens. Imagine being able to run at an impervious brick wall & just appear on the other side of it unscathed. Makes absolutely no sense to us, but this is exactly what your electronics are doing, it's built on our observations of these effects occurring, even though they absolutely don't make sense to us, let alone we understand HOW it can happen.

It's painfully clear you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

We can't demonstrate what has not been presented.Present the evidence for natural selection and I will show you where it is not scientific evidence.

Are you even Serious after this post??:

You've missed it Twice then already...

So, for the Third Time!! Here it is (included it in its entirety, just in case you have trouble seeing it...):

Let's try for number 4!:

....like these?:
Comparing Patterns of Natural Selection across Species Using Selective Signatures
Darwinian natural selection: its enduring explanatory power
Perhaps you should just read some books? Any books? (except that creationists tripe, of course)

Because of the evidence that the stories in the Qur'An are fact?

What's the scientific definition of "kind" then?

What about the Snow Leopard, it can't be crossbred with any of the other cats, is it of its own kind? Why/why not? I'm not after examples, I want to know a framework by which we can objectively identify what a "kind" is. If your definition is just that it can reproduce, then a Snow Leopard (and millions more species like it) are actually their own kind, meaning the Ark immediately becomes a non-starter just on the numbers of species against that criteria alone. Of course, then there's ring species, how do they work? Are the ends of these ring species different kinds?? If not, then what happens if the middle of this ring species is wiped out or separates permanently? Are they their own kind then?

http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/wh.or.11.pdf
From Land to Water: the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises
Transition of Eocene Whales from Land to Sea: Evidence from Bone Microstructure
The evolution of whales
....Okay, that last one is a laypeople article.... I figured you won't understand the science in these other peer reviewed studies of Whale Evolution from a land animal so threw it in the mix for you. No, no, don't thank me, I don't mind helping you google your education material for you...

You should believe the Bible unless you can prove it is wrong. Why don't you start with "after their kind."

Just like You should believe the Qur'An unless you can prove it wrong. and You should believe the Vedas unless you can prove them wrong. and You should believe the Torah unless you can prove it wrong, etc. It poses something of a dilemma for you since the Torah in particular is the basis of the Bible and Jesus doesn't match the Torah's version of the Messiah.

 

[Astrophile]

But we have to understand that time as we know it is merely a man made construct. Did you ever wonder what makes our measure of time the supreme measurement? I mean if you were born and raised on Venus then one day there would be equivalent to about 224 earth days. So by this we can easily see how time is indeed very relative to your base line and thus must be only a man made construct.

In fact at any point on Venus the length of a day, measured from mid-day to mid-day, is about 116¾ Earth days; this is a consequence of the retrograde rotation of Venus, and you can calculate it using the formula for the synodic period.

However, the length of the second, which is the SI unit of time, on Venus would be the same as it is on Earth, namely '9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at a temperature of 0 K' - http://www.physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html . This shows that time is not 'very relative to your base line'; its fundamental unit can be defined and measured anywhere in the universe.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You say we experience the effects of relativity and then say I am conflating man made label with something observed. So let me ask you how does one observe time? Can we cut a slice off and put it under a microscope?

If you mean "can Science quantitatively study space-time?" then Yes, yes it can. There's a number of experiments that have borne this out both within our own solar system and in our observations of massive stars and gravitational lensing at distance. If you want to see the peer-reviewed science, I can dig it up for you because we have this phenomenon well documented and understood.

No we use "man made" devices that measure what we have all agreed to call the passage of a second or micro second, and then we use those man made devices to measure the passage of man made seconds at various velocities and found that what we have agreed to call a second passes slower at higher velocities than it does at slower velocities. Time is relative to the observer and what his baseline is and is even hotly debated as to what it is between physicists.

Not sure it is, this reference you've provided doesn't indicate anything hotly debated at all, just that we don't know what exists outside our Universe now that we know our experience of time is inexorably linked to our three-dimensional space & gravity, however we relate them to each other.

So what would time be to an infinite mind?

There are no minds I know of that are infinite. All minds (being the product of biological living beings) are a product of their biological underpinnings. Do you have any evidence of a disembodied mind?

From His baseline no time exists. He would be time...less. What this means is He could experience time in a way we can barely imagine.

This is a thought experiment, right?

We are temporal beings and only experience it in chronological order. We are born, go through childhood, high school, college, get married, have kids, grand kids and then retire and die. But what if someone took a snapshot of every minute of your entire life and arranged the pictures all on one giant board, and you had the ability to see and experience every minute of your entire life all at once. That is how the timeless God would experience what we call time -past, present, and future, infinitely in both directions.

Are we still in a thought experiment? If not, What evidence do you have to support this idea of yours?

However in order to relate to us He also interjects Himself into time in a temporal way.

Great! Then this is something we can test for. Would you be talking about Miracles? Embodiment in a first century Jew? So far all the claims for anything falling into either of these categories have not substantiated anything outside the mundane at best, so I'll be interested to hear what you propose.

We cannot say we "know" that what we have "labeled" as time began at the beginning of the universe. We can only logically say there would have been no ability for us to measure the passage of time prior to the existence of matter.

if indeed time existed before our Universe, then yes, you'd be right - but we don't know this either way. We do know that time in this universe is directly entangled with the three dimensions of space and gravity, all of which came about at the beginning of this locally presented universe. We don't know if there is some other form of time outside this one, so we can hardly speculate about time existing outside this universe let alone what it would be like...

 

[doubtingmerle]

not realy. the hand in both a watch and a compass is used for a different function. but it doesnt mean that we have a stepwise way from a compass into a watch:

into:

in the watch its tell the time and in the compass its tell the north direction. but you cant change the compass into the watch by small steps.

(images from Compass – Android Apps on Google Play and One Hand Watch - The Original from Germany | Botta-Design)

Show me a watch embryo.

A cat comes from a cat embryo that comes from a cat zygote. In the earliest stages it looks nothing like a cat. As it adds cells, portions fold back on themselves, almost like origami. Small changes in the DNA cause folds with different timing and magnitude. So mutations make minor changes in the growth pattern, producing significant differences in the adult.

But a watch does not come from an embryo.

 

[pitabread]

I haven't mentioned theology, sdo why do you accuse me of doing it?

Re-read the part of your post I quoted.

If you understood genetics and mutations, you would become a creationists.

Which is why the majority of qualified biologists are creationist--- oh wait, they're not. Nevermind.

 

[doubtingmerle]

so if you will have a billion years the cat must be change into something that isnt a cat? are you sure about that?

In a billion years the descendants of cats might be very different from modern cats. If we saw them today, we would not think of calling them cats, even though they would be in the cat family.

 

[doubtingmerle]

And by the way, please show the evolution of a cat all the way back to it's ancestor please.

And by the way, please show me every ancestor of yours back to Adam, please.

 

[Kylie]

Where is your evidence that he clung to Lamarckianism?

Pierre-Paul Grassé - Wikipedia

However the question is not about Lamarckianism, it is about mutations, and you can't provide the evidence for even one mutation that caused a change of species.

Of course, anyone who knew anything about evolution would understand that one mutation alone would not cause a change of species.

It is many mutations over many generations that cause a new species.

Really, you creationists simply must stop trying to argue against evolution when you don't even understand the first thing about it.

 

[Kylie]

Present the evidence for natural selection and I will show you where it is not scientific evidence.

I'd be happy to do that.

But first, let me make sure you actually know what natural selection is. Can you explain natural selection in your own words?

 

[Kylie]

Unless you can proved it is not relevant it is relevant. What makes it relevant is that it is true unless you can prove it is not, and you can't. If it is true, the context will show it to be. If you understood mutations you would know his statement was true.

I do understand mutations.

I do not understand your attempt at logic. Your argument is nonsensical. Things are not "true" until they are shown to be "untrue."

And his statement is not true. Mutations have been observed as a major part of natural selection. Not some hypothetical thing, but actually observed. The Lamarckian ideas to which he clung are laughably false.

 

[pitabread]

Similarities do not validate evolution.

Patterns of similarities do. Specifically the patterns we would expect if organisms were related via common ancestry. And then we observe those very patterns.

 

[pitabread]

I quit reading. All they provided was a bunch of speculation. I too have quit reading many links for the same reason.

Reading is hard.

But in fact a lot of what you dismiss as "speculation" is in fact scientific hypotheses, which in turn make predictions, which in turn are confirmed by observation. You'd probably get more out of that material if you'd learn about the scientific method first.

But that would involve more reading.

 

[doubtingmerle]

How do you know? I thought the cambrian explosion was fast evolution. Couldn't the cat have been the same.

The Cambrian explosion led to a lot of different life forms, but was not unusually fast.

The Pikaia shown below is about the closest thing to human found in the Cambrian. It grew to be about 1.5" long. It is one of the few known fossils with the beginnings of a spinal cord, and it probably was in the line that led to us vertebrates.

So if developing this worm like creature in 50 million years from a simpler worm like creature impresses you, fine, but this was by no means the end of evolution. It would take hundreds of millions of years to evolve into mammals at this rate.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You fully acknowledged the truth here. The creator did use the same basic structures. All life has the same basic structures. Yet all life also has codings that could change upon necessity.

You missed my entire point. Let me try again.

Animals have different structure for Cytochrome C coding, not because the codings needed to be different, but simply because that is the way it ended up. All the codings produce the same protein, Cytochrome C. The coding chosen by different groups of animals matches patterns expected by evolution. If you say the creator decided to always use the same basic structures (even though he had choices), why did he always use different codes for Cytochrome C coding (when he could have made them the same)? Evolution has an answer. The basic structures had to stay the same because they were set early and everything had to be based on that selection. The later decisions varied, simply because they were later and they could vary.

 

[doubtingmerle]

With all due respect sir, I was once where you are now although I never accepted evolution as an explanation for all living things coming for [sic] one source.

Then with all due respect sir, you were never where I am now. But I was once a firm believer in young earth creationism, and actively promoted it.

 

[Jimmy D]

Similarities do not validate evolution. You have to show that the evolution actually took place. And you can't.

Did I suggest that it did? I suggest you read what I was responding to before spamming your stock reply.

What I was saying is that it's homologous to land mammals forelimbs, which it is.

 

[omega2xx]

Then with all due respect sir, you were never where I am now. But I was once a firm believer in young earth creationism, and actively promoted it.

I am very glad I am not where you are now. If you could produce some evidence for where you are now, I might join you.

You are still accepting what you believe now by faith alone. IMO, it takes more faith for where you are now than for when you were before.

Evidently your God is now to small.

 

[omega2xx]

I do understand mutations.

No you don't. You have accepted by faith alone the usual talking points of the fundamentalist evolutionists. You cant show one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species. Mutations only affect characteristics not species.

I do not understand your attempt at logic. Your argument is nonsensical. Things are not "true" until they are shown to be "untrue."

Science is not based on logic, it is based on evidence, Things are true when they can b e repeated and seen.

And his statement is not true. Mutations have been observed as a major part of natural selection. Not some hypothetical thing, but actually observed. The Lamarckian ideas to which he clung are laughably false.

What is laughable is that you have no evidence for what you accept by faith alone, not science. You can't show where mutations result in a change of species and you can't prove natural selection results in a change of species.

You don' t even understand that the laws of genetics say both are not possible.