Evolution happens

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was history and science itself who called those things a hoax.

I'm just relaying the story.

Except that you AREN'T. You just SAYING that they're a hoax isn't doing anything to SHOW they're a hoax.
Do you understand the difference between SAYING something is a hoax and SHOWING something is a hoax?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Correct you are.

Carbon 14 dating was another facet of many of science's hoaxes over the years. It is absolutely ineffective beyond a couple thousand years.

Are you up for a physics lesson, or are you just throwing mud on the wall?

 

[Gene2memE]

Darwin's theory of Evolution has never been proven and Lucy was an embarrassing hoax.

The Theory of Evolution describes the observed fact of evolution (descent with modification), resulting in the best explanation for both the present levels of biological diversity and the observed ~3.6 billion year history of life.

A Theory is a thoroughly tested explanation of a phenomenon, providing a framework explaining the observed facts and making useful predictions. There's the Germ Theory of Disease, Cell Theory, Atomic Theory etc, etc.

Theories are never proven. Facts are proven (in a colloquial sense). Theories provide the explanation of facts. The Theory of Evolution has been proven to describe the facts of evolution in the same way that the General Theory of Relativity has been proved to describe the facts of gravity.

(Also, why mention Darwin at all? Darwin's words could disappear from history tomorrow and the modern formulation of the Theory of Evolution would be entirely unchanged.)

Lucy is not a hoax - otherwise subsequent discoveries of Australopithecus fossils would have not have confirmed here anatomical reconstruction. There are remains from better than 300 individuals from the various Australopithecus species that have been discovered in the past ~45 years.

Even if Lucy WAS a hoax - like Piltdown Man - it would be irrelevant. There are many other hominid ancestors of humans that have been discovered since then. Not to mention the discoveries of the other Homo sub-species (Neanderthals, Denisovans, Heidelbergensis, among others) that existed alongside us. As well as all the anatomically modern homo sapiens skeletons from as far back as 400,000 years ago.

I know why I, and many others, hold fast to the Biblically-founded concept of Creationism. Why do you hold so fast to Evolution Theory?

Because it's a thoroughly tested explanation of the diversity of life, and not believing it requires me to instead believe ridiculous conspiracy theories and/or creation mythologies that don't line up with observed reality.

Even when I was a religious person (Catholic), I saw no reason to believe the Christian creation account was anything other than allegorical. And neither did any of the teachers at the various Catholic schools I attended, including the priests.

 

[AV1611VET]

(Also, why mention Darwin at all? Darwin's words could disappear from history tomorrow and the modern formulation of the Theory of Evolution would be entirely unchanged.)

Kinda like suppressing the carrier wave because it's no longer needed?

Or Commodore Wesley referring to Captain Kirk as "Captain Dunsel"?

 

[AV1611VET]

Even when I was a religious person (Catholic), I saw no reason to believe the Christian creation account was anything other than allegorical. And neither did any of the teachers at the various Catholic schools I attended, including the priests.

If you were truly born-again, what made you give up all this ...

Psalm 34:8 O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him.

Psalm 51:12 Restore unto me the joy of thy salvation; and uphold me with thy free spirit.

Romans 12:6 Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith;
7 Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;
8 Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.

Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Hebrews 6:4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

... to embrace atheism?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not even your very best Physics lesson could prove evolution fairy tale.

Here's one for ya: Why would a single celled, asexual, organism, that was neat and tidy, and had everything it needed to survive and reproduce, all within a perfect enclosed system, suddenly decide it now needed something hugely vital from another of its kind (that didn't yet exist) and begin the transformation into a much more complex process of sexual interaction for the purpose of its reproduction and survival of its species, and for how many millions of years did it get this wrong and not have the ability to reproduce - stuck somewhere in between - and how could it have possibly survived during the 100's of thousands of limbo years as an organism that needed something from another organism to reproduce, while that other organism hadn't even begun to form yet?

I'm aware the fairy tale parameters demand that it would be one of many that were making this change over an extended period of time, but none of them would have survived that got it wrong, and the ones that came after could not have made further progress from the point of needing that something from another similar organism (which still didn't yet exist), and even if they did, the chances that another organism would be making a similar - but opposite - change at that same time and would get it right, and THEN they would just so happen to come together for a sexual exchange of vital materials - are a googol to one.

A lot of the fairy tales that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence. But you can't borrow from Creationism to flesh out your evolutionary theoretical construction. Evolution is all about randomness. It's only Creationism that is allowed to have intelligence already inside the cells of organisms. That's how a plant/tree can use very specific and finely tuned scents to call out to specific insects that feed on the insects that are attacking them in order to save themselves. How can a plant possibly know that it needs exactly that while simultaneously having the very complex inherent intelligence to be capable of speaking the scent language of the specific insect that feeds on the insects that are attacking it? There is only ONE answer. And it is absolutely NOT random evolution. It is God and it is absolutely brilliant intelligent design.

Most Evolutionists don't even consider the impossibilities. They just take it on faith and embrace anything their heroes like Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein, etc. seem to embrace. Yes, faith. Science is a religion as well; don't forget.

I said *physics* not *evolution*. They are not the same thing. My question was specifically about C-14.

Do you want to to understand the physics behind C-14 dating, or not?

 

[Think...]

I said *physics* not *evolution*. They are not the same thing. My question was specifically about C-14.

Do you want to to understand the physics behind C-14 dating, or not?

Nice dodge.

That was a close one.

You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.

Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.

Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.

 

[Shemjaza]

Not even your very best Physics lesson could prove evolution fairy tale.

Here's one for ya: Why would a single celled, asexual, organism, that was neat and tidy, and had everything it needed to survive and reproduce, all within a perfect enclosed system, suddenly decide it now needed something hugely vital from another of its kind (that didn't yet exist) and begin the transformation into a much more complex process of sexual interaction for the purpose of its reproduction and survival of its species, and for how many millions of years did it get this wrong and not have the ability to reproduce - stuck somewhere in between - and how could it have possibly survived during the 100's of thousands of limbo years as an organism that needed something from another organism to reproduce, while that other organism hadn't even begun to form yet?

I'm aware the fairy tale parameters demand that it would be one of many that were making this change over an extended period of time, but none of them would have survived that got it wrong, and the ones that came after could not have made further progress from the point of needing that something from another similar organism (which still didn't yet exist), and even if they did, the chances that another organism would be making a similar - but opposite - change at that same time and would get it right, and THEN they would just so happen to come together for a sexual exchange of vital materials - are a googol to one. The mathematical equivalent of ... absolutely impossible.

A lot of the fairy tales that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence. But you can't borrow from Creationism to flesh out your evolutionary theoretical construction. Evolution is all about randomness. It's only Creationism that is allowed to have intelligence already inside the cells of organisms. That's how a plant/tree can use very specific and finely tuned scents to call out to specific insects that feed on the insects that are attacking them in order to save themselves. How can a plant possibly know that it needs exactly that while simultaneously having the very complex inherent intelligence to be capable of speaking the scent language of the specific insect that feeds on the insects that are attacking it? There is only ONE answer. And it is absolutely NOT random evolution. It is God and it is absolutely brilliant intelligent design.

Most Evolutionists don't even consider the impossibilities. They just take it on faith and embrace anything their heroes like Hawking, Dawkins, Einstein, etc. seem to embrace. Yes, faith. Science is a religion as well; don't forget.

Are you aware that organisms who reproduce both asexually and sexually exist?
Are you aware that organisms can function both as independent single cells and as cooperative colony organisms?
Are you aware that ecological synergy can vary greatly with how specific, precise and effective interactions function?

Even without the bizarre physical structures that are explained by step wise evolution and would indicate wasteful and foolish design, nature is not an example of perfect clockwork, it's actually kind of a complicated mess. That's why so many species have gone extinct over the eons.

 

[Shemjaza]

Nice dodge.

That was a close one.

You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.

Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.

Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.

Also, can you explain what you actually believe about Australopithecus afarensis?

Do you believe that all the different fossils are completely fake or just Lucy?

Do you believe that they were real animals, just less upright?

What do you believe about all the other transitional hominids?

 

[Think...]

Are you aware that organisms who reproduce both asexually and sexually exist?
Are you aware that organisms can function both as independent single cells and as cooperative colony organisms?
Are you aware that ecological synergy can vary greatly with how specific, precise and effective interactions function?

Even without the bizarre physical structures that are explained by step wise evolution and would indicate wasteful and foolish design, nature is not an example of perfect clockwork, it's actually kind of a complicated mess. That's why so many species have gone extinct over the eons.

None of that has any bearing on the fact that evolution claims that the most complex sexual organisms, like humans, began from a state similar to what I described.

So the process I described would've had to take place for the theory of evolution to be true. It can not; and it is not.

 

[Gene2memE]

Nice dodge.

That was a close one.

You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.

Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.

Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.

Evolution doesn't claim any such thing. It only deals with life once it exists. The origins of life - in scientific terms - are dealt with by the field of abiogenesis.

There's no firm answer as to how the first life formed. We know that it happened at least 3.6 billion years ago (because we have evidence of microbes that old) and that the earliest life was much less complex than the life that exists at present.

We do know a number of things though:

Simple chemicals naturally form together to create complex chemicals
Complex chemicals naturally form together to create basic molecules
Basic molecules in the presence of energy gradients naturally form simple self-replicating molecules
Simple self-replicating molecules are not alive, but they show strong similarities to the processes seen in living things
Simple self-replicating molecules don't always replicate perfectly. Sometimes that imperfection results in something that is better at making copies of itself

 

[Think...]

Also, can you explain what you actually believe about Australopithecus afarensis?

Do you believe that all the different fossils are completely fake or just Lucy?

Do you believe that they were real animals, just less upright?

What do you believe about all the other transitional hominids?

I'm a True Christian.

 

[Gene2memE]

None of that has any bearing on the fact that evolution claims that the most complex sexual organisms, like humans, began from a state similar to what I described.

So the process I described would've had to take place for the theory of evolution to be true. It can not; and it is not.

Some light reading:

Evolution of sexual reproduction

 

[Gene2memE]

I'm a True Christian.

Are those Christians who accept evolution 'True Christians' or not?

 

[Think...]

Evolution doesn't claim any such thing. It only deals with life once it exists. The origins of life - in scientific terms - are dealt with by the field of abiogenesis.

There's no firm answer as to how the first life formed. We know that it happened at least 3.6 billion years ago (because we have evidence of microbes that old) and that the earliest life was much less complex than the life that exists at present.

We do know a number of things though:

Simple chemicals naturally form together to create complex chemicals
Complex chemicals naturally form together to create basic molecules
Basic molecules in the presence of energy gradients naturally form simple self-replicating molecules
Simple self-replicating molecules are not alive, but they show strong similarities to the processes seen in living things
Simple self-replicating molecules don't always replicate perfectly. Sometimes that imperfection results in something that is better at making copies of itself

I don't play word games. This thread is about Creationism vs Evolution. Abiogenesis is fully in the evolutionism camp. It certainly isn't Creationism.

And the single celled organism example I laid out is 100% in line with what is claimed by them. Regardless of what science chooses to call it.

The diversity of life on Earth today is the result of evolution. Life began on Earth at least 3.5 to 4 billion years ago, and it has been evolving ever since. At first, all living things on Earth were simple, single-celled organisms.

CK12-Foundation

 

[Think...]

Are those Christians who accept evolution 'True Christians' or not?

Nice try once again.

You guys are slick.

Wow.

Sneaky and subtle.

(Not)

 

[Think...]

Are those Christians who accept evolution 'True Christians' or not?

Was/Is Christ an evolutionist?

And what does the term Christian mean?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nice dodge.

That was a close one.

You almost had to think for yourself and formulate a very intelligent, organized response to explain an impossible scenario.

Evolution claims that complex life ... created itself ... from non-life ... in a swamp ... of gases and lifeless chemicals, etc.

Yeah, I'd dodge that explanation as well.

Not a dodge in the least. You made a claim about C14 dating, and I asked you a question about *that*. I made no statements about evolution of any kind in response to any post of yours.

So do you want to understand the physics of C14 dating, or do you just insist on making claims based on what I assume is your ignorance.

 

[Think...]

Not a dodge in the least. You made a claim about C14 dating, and I asked you a question about *that*. I made no statements about evolution of any kind in response to any post of yours.

So do you want to understand the physics of C14 dating, or do you just insist on making claims based on what I assume is your ignorance.

Oh it was quite clearly a dodge - and an embarrassing one at that. I asked you a direct question about the concept you are here supporting, that being evolution.

You asked me if I wanted a physics lesson and I answered your question. If you taught me to be a physics master, it wouldn't make evolution one bit more true.

Your physics lesson matters not in the least.

Now are you going to answer my question or roger-dodge it once again?

 

[Shemjaza]

None of that has any bearing on the fact that evolution claims that the most complex sexual organisms, like humans, began from a state similar to what I described.

So the process I described would've had to take place for the theory of evolution to be true. It can not; and it is not.

Not actually true.

The point is that your hard line between single celled and multicellular and the hard line between asexual and bi-gendered sexual reproduction doesn't hold true for modern life forms, so it can't be described as an impossible hurdle for extinct ancestral ones.