proving evolution as just a "theory"

[doubtingmerle]

yes i agree. how its has any connection to the existence of ic system?

Prove that a system in life was so irreducibly complex that natural processes of evolution could not have evolved it.

And if you tell me animals are limited by the same limits as mechanical devices, I will disagree.

 

[pitabread]

realy? so lets take the eye example.

Quit trying to change the subject. I asked you to prove that self-replicating cars exist, since you keep mentioning them all the time.

Now, can you prove that self replicating cars are real or can't you?

 

[bhsmte]

Science works for me. Try it sometimes

I will give it a shot.

 

[PsychoSarah]

realy? so lets take the eye example. do you agree that a minimal light detector need at least several parts to be functional?

The simplest eyes in multicellular organisms consist of just 2 cells, a photoreceptor and a pigment cell. So, the minimum is 2 parts, and the formation of darker pigmented cells happens a lot via random mutation. Plus, the photoreceptor would react to light even without that pigmented cell, because the organisms that have these are semi-transparent; it just wouldn't react as strongly.

and if so: how it can evolve stepwise?

Two steps really aren't that hard to take.

 

[rjs330]

What would be the alternative? That many thousands of similar species came into existence de novo over time and then became extinct in such a way as to present the appearance of a developmental series in the fossil record? Why should I believe that when we have on hand an evolutionary mechanism which acounts for that appearance? Why should we not then infer that the process began with one or a few single species? Why not, when despite the whining of creationists, no evidence has been found which rules it out? Yes, it's an inference, but unless some evidence is discovered which falsifies it, it remains a reasonable one.

Wait are you open to the idea that evolution from a common ancestor did not happen, but evolution from several may have happened?

 

[rjs330]

What would be the alternative? That many thousands of similar species came into existence de novo over time and then became extinct in such a way as to present the appearance of a developmental series in the fossil record? Why should I believe that when we have on hand an evolutionary mechanism which acounts for that appearance? Why should we not then infer that the process began with one or a few single species? Why not, when despite the whining of creationists, no evidence has been found which rules it out? Yes, it's an inference, but unless some evidence is discovered which falsifies it, it remains a reasonable one.

They also did not go extinct so as to have the appearance of evolution from one thing into another. There is no appearance of anything outside of a group evolving into another group. That is the evolutionary assumption.

We Creationists see the "evidence" for what it is. Pure speculation.

 

[pitabread]

We Creationists see the "evidence" for what it is.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Wait are you open to the idea that evolution from a common ancestor did not happen, but evolution from several may have happened?

I think he was suggesting that the fossil record heavily supports the idea that not every species/genus that has ever existed once existed at the same time, so that the only alternative to evolution would be multiple creation events, each following mass extinctions.

With the implication that this alternative is ridiculous and has no evidence supporting it.

 

[rjs330]

Wrong. The fossil record shows humans have evolved.

Oh good more assumptions. Many of those so called humans can't be shown to really be humans. And certainly not one of them are of any evidence of all things coming from a common ancestor.

 

[PsychoSarah]

They also did not go extinct so as to have the appearance of evolution from one thing into another. There is no appearance of anything outside of a group evolving into another group.

Define "group". Species, genus...?

 

[Speedwell]

Wait are you open to the idea that evolution from a common ancestor did not happen, but evolution from several may have happened?

A common ancestor is the most parsimonious hypothesis, of course. But until we know how life actually started it is impossible to say for sure. We don't know how common an event abiogenesis was (or is, for that matter--it may happen even now, unbeknownst to us because the proto-life which emerged would be instantly consumed as food by the existing biosphere) but it may have happened more than once. Scientists, of course realize this possibility and it is tacitly assumed in their assertion of common descent. Suffice it to say that no distinct genetic lines have been detected as surviving from that ancient period.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh good more assumptions. Many of those so called humans can't be shown to really be humans. And certainly not one of them are of any evidence of all things coming from a common ancestor.

Australopithicus wasn't really human? Of course not. Nobody said it was. But it is intermediate between apelike creatures and humans. That is evidence for evolution.

Why wouldn't that count as one small piece of the evidence for common ancestry?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wait are you open to the idea that evolution from a common ancestor did not happen, but evolution from several may have happened?

It's certainly a possibility.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Australopithicus wasn't really human? Of course not. Nobody said it was. But it is intermediate between apelike creatures and humans. That is evidence for evolution.

Why wouldn't that count as one small piece of the evidence for common ancestry?

Unless you can demonstrate it is the specific common ancestor it's simply speculation

 

[doubtingmerle]

Oh good more assumptions.

Uh, no its not assumptions. The chart I showed you was a summary of fossils that have been found and the dates of the fossils. How do you explain that all those fossils have been found in an order that is consistent with evolution?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Who said that God was just a disembodied mind?

So you can point to a physical vessel that we can examine?

We know through observation that the universe requires an infinite source,

Citation Please.

and the characteristics of the universe tells us this infinite source must possess intelligence.

Citation Please! This all sounds like unsubstantiated claims...

 

[omega2xx]

Quit trying to change the subject. I asked you to prove that self-replicating cars exist, since you keep mentioning them all the time.

Now, can you prove that self replicating cars are real or can't you?

I don't waste time on ignorant concepts.

 

[omega2xx]

I know your ilk and I ain't in the mood for pigeon chess.

I know your ilk, I know you can't.

 

[omega2xx]

This is a dumb request. First of all, blatantly copy-pasting material from other sites is essentially plagiarism, which is against the rules here.

It is not plagiarism if you give credit to the source. It is done all the time here. It is your excuse not to do it. It hints at trying , but recognizing links offer not real, verifiable evidence.

Second, often times such material is quite lengthy, has specific formatting, embedded images, diagrams, etc. To ask a person to recreate that in a series of posts is ridiculous.

Another excuse. It can b e done in a short paragraph of 50 words or less.

No, what is really happening here is you just want an excuse to avoid material so you can keep up the lie about there not being presented any scientific material or evidence.

What is really happening here is you would if you could but you can't.

Either that or you're just blatantly trolling. It's hard to tell sometimes.

It is a musing that so many swear by evolution but are unwilling to take 5 minuets to prove it is really based on science. Your faith is enviable .

Point is that one's opinion about a subject does not change the subject. You can reject evolution all you want. It's still going to be a foundational part of modern biology and will continue to be taught and applied as such. That's not going to change just because you don't like it.

Y0u finally got something right. It will continue to be taught and I don't like it because it is a lie. Nothing it says can be proved. Prove me wrong.

 

[omega2xx]

I don't need to repeat what others have posted many times. I'm never sure if it's arrogance, bad manners or stupidity that leads people to ignore what others write.

None have posted any verifiable, scientific evidence. If you think they have , then you don't understand what scientific evidence is.

Do you say that from willful dishonesty or genuine lack of understanding? It's quite tiresome.

Neither. If it so tiresome, cut and paste some evidence and shut me up or just put me on ignore.

A science which does not bring us nearer to God is worthless. Simone Weil