Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[NxNW]

Well, we made it to page 60. Not sorry to say, but nothing any of you said made me believe man evolved from a single cell organism through millions of years.

Nobody's claiming that happened.

 

[The Barbarian]

There are holes to be punched into these examples but I'll need to investigate further.

You believe it, but you're going to have to "investigate" before telling us about it? It's the YEC system; conclusion first, look for facts to support it, later. If you find some holes in those examples, be sure to let us know, hear?

So this is saying that these subjects are the "go betweens" of the parenthesis subjects?

The transitional forms? The ones a YE Creationist admits are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory?" Pick one and I'll show you the evidence.

Is there a continuous unbroken line from the single celled organism all the way down the line to Homo sapiens?

I can't think of a step in the process without a transitional form, some still existing. For what step do you think there isn't evidence?

If so, please give me the website

It's a lot of stuff. Perhaps you're not aware of how much variation that actually entails. Just step up and tell me what stage in the process you think there's no evidence for. ( if HvIzsgak doesn't step up to the challenge, I'd be willing to take suggestions from other YECs). This is the point where YECs usually bail out of the discussion, but there are some smart YECs hereabouts, so maybe one will be able to give us something. Let's see...

 

[The Barbarian]

This is one of my favorite pictures:

Ah, the YEC explanation for the origin of life. In fact, God just created nature to bring forth living things. YECs just tell us what they know God would tell us, if He had all the facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Who are the "they"?

I take it you haven't seen the videos of Jay Leno out on the streets interviewing college students?

 

[Jerry N.]

I take it you haven't seen the videos of Jay Leno out on the streets interviewing college students?

Sorry, I didn't get the joke.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's the YEC system; conclusion first, look for facts to support it, later.

Is that why archaeologists are traipsing all over the globe, looking for evidence to support macroevolution?

If you find some holes in those examples, be sure to let us know, hear?

That's rich, coming from a theory that is based on more missing links than D. B. Cooper's stash.

 

[The Barbarian]

I take it you haven't seen the videos of Jay Leno out on the streets interviewing college students?

The vast majority of college students never take a course in biological evolution, and very few of them take more than an introductory course in biology. No wonder you get those ideas.

 

[BCP1928]

Is that why archaeologists are traipsing all over the globe, looking for evidence to support macroevolution?

No. Archaeologists aren't looking for evidence of macroevolution. They are looking for the remains of human activity.

That's rich, coming from a theory that is based on more missing links than D. B. Cooper's stash.

Why do you think that's a problem? Fossil finds confirm the theory of evolution. The theory isn't based on them. The theory is based on observations made of living creatures. "Common descent" which is what I suppose you object to, is a prediction of the theory which will stand so long as new fossil finds continue to confirm it.

 

[The Barbarian]

It's the YEC system; conclusion first, look for facts to support it, later.

Is that why archaeologists are traipsing all over the globe, looking for evidence to support macroevolution?

Archaeologists don't study evolution. No wonder you're confused; you're looking in all the wrong places. Paleontologists look for fossils. And they are testing claims of evolutionary theory.

Fairly recent example:
Evolutionary theory predicted that the evolution of tetrapods occurred In the Devonian. If correct, one should find transitional fish/tetrapods in Devonian deposits. So paleontologists went and started looking. And they found the predicted transitionals, confirming evolutionary theory yet again.

Newly found species fills evolutionary gap between fish and land animals - UChicago Medicine

www.uchicagomedicine.org

If you find some holes in those examples, be sure to let us know, hear?

That's rich, coming from a theory that is based on more missing links than D. B. Cooper's stash.

But you can't name any? We all know why.

Missing Lynx found:

Lynx issiodorensis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The fossil record, as honest YECs admit, is very good evidence for evolution. But we still find important new fossils almost monthly. Still, I'm sure we'd all like to hear about the gaps in the fossil record. There still are some, for some lines of living things. You might get lucky. Tell us what you think.

 

[AV1611VET]

"Common descent" which is what I suppose you object to, is a prediction of the theory which will stand so long as new fossil finds continue to confirm it.

I've said this many times here, and it bears repeating:

The theory of evolution is nothing more than a game of connect-the-dots.

Only on paper.

 

[AV1611VET]

Archaeologists don't study evolution. No wonder you're confused; you're looking in all the wrong places. Paleontologists look for fossils.

I don't care if they're cab drivers hired to look.

Conclusion first, then look for evidence.

(Or hire someone to do it.)

And they are testing claims of evolutionary theory.

And testing them with equipment programmed and calibrated to find what they're looking for.

Fairly recent example:
Evolutionary theory predicted that the evolution of tetrapods occurred In the Devonian. If correct, one should find transitional fish/tetrapods in Devonian deposits. So paleontologists went and started looking. And they found the predicted transitionals, confirming evolutionary theory yet again.

After how many tries?

How many times did they look and look again until they found something?

In addition, did they have to readjust their search criteria during the search?

Scientist: If my theory is correct, we should find white bones in this forest.
Searcher: No white bones found, mate.
Scientist: Readjust and look for brown ones.
Scientist: Found'em, mate.

If you find some holes in those examples, be sure to let us know, hear?

 

[Hvizsgyak]

I just want to leave one more post for those people who question the theory of evolution or anyone curious about evolution but want to know what hasn't been proven yet. This info is tough to come by because Google only wants to give sights that claim the theory of evolution is a fact (which it is not). There are some very key areas of the theory of evolution that are still unknown how they work or occur. Here are some. Hopefully once you have read these, you too will question the theory of evolution.

This was created by Artificial Intelligence (at least it can give straight answers to questions unlike Google search)


While evolution is supported by extensive evidence, certain aspects, such as the exact mechanisms of the origin of life and some specific evolutionary transitions, remain less understood or not directly observed. Additionally, while common descent is widely accepted, the precise pathways of how species evolved from one another can still be debated and researched. Wikipedia ncse.ngo

Unproven Aspects of Evolution​

Origin of Life​

• The exact process of how life originated on Earth remains unclear. While various hypotheses exist, no definitive evidence has been found to explain the transition from non-living chemical compounds to living organisms.

Mechanisms of Evolution​

• While natural selection and genetic drift are well-supported mechanisms, other proposed mechanisms, such as the role of epigenetics or horizontal gene transfer in evolution, are still under investigation. Their full impact on evolutionary processes is not yet fully understood.

Transitional Fossils​

• Although many transitional fossils have been discovered, gaps still exist in the fossil record. Some evolutionary transitions, particularly those leading to major groups like mammals or birds, lack comprehensive fossil evidence.

Speciation Events​

• The precise processes and timelines of speciation events, where one species evolves into another, are often difficult to observe directly. While speciation has been documented, the details of how it occurs in various contexts remain a topic of research.

Evolutionary Predictions​

• While evolutionary theory makes predictions about the traits of organisms based on their ancestry, not all predictions have been confirmed. Some aspects of evolutionary change, especially in complex traits, are still being studied.

Conclusion​

While evolution is supported by substantial evidence, certain aspects, particularly regarding the origin of life and specific evolutionary mechanisms, remain unproven or not fully understood. Ongoing research continues to explore these areas.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Nobody's claiming that happened.

You have said this numerous times, explain then what happened because the whole idea of evolution is man evolved from single celled organism (who miraculously put themselves together from non-living material). First, single celled organism then multi celled organisms then primitive sealife then amphibians like creatures then small mammals then tree dwelling mammals then primitive hominids then man. That is what every site I go to says about evolution. So what is your take?

a video showing evolution from a single celled organism to man - Search Videos

www.bing.com

I have to say this video is a joke and very simplistic and if this is how bio chemists, biologists, paleontologists and evolutionist view evolution...

 

[Hvizsgyak]

No. Archaeologists aren't looking for evidence of macroevolution. They are looking for the remains of human activity.

Why do you think that's a problem? Fossil finds confirm the theory of evolution. The theory isn't based on them. The theory is based on observations made of living creatures. "Common descent" which is what I suppose you object to, is a prediction of the theory which will stand so long as new fossil finds continue to confirm it.

Microevolution yes; macroevolution a joke

 

[The Barbarian]

You got it wrong, again. Archaeologists don't study evolution. No wonder you're confused; you're looking in all the wrong places. Paleontologists look for fossils.

I don't care if they're cab drivers hired to look.

Conclusion first, then look for evidence.

And again, you get it wrong. In science, it's "predictions first, then look for evidence to see if the prediction is right or wrong." As in the case I showed you. If evolutionary theory is correct, there should be tetrapod/fish transitionals in Devonian deposits. So scientists went to see. And the predicted transitionals were there. That's how science works. Testing predictions.

And testing them with equipment programmed and calibrated to find what they're looking for.

Fossils are either there, or they aren't. C'mon.

After how many tries?

Why would that matter? The predicted transitionals were there, where evolutionary theory predicted they would be.

In addition, did they have to readjust their search criteria during the search?

No. The prediction was simple; "there should be fish/tetrapod transitionals in Devonian deposits. Turns out, there are. Not just one or two.

(faked scientist story)
Well, who was surprised by that? If you find some holes in those examples, be sure to let us know, hear?

(can't find any, but offers a kid's puzzle)

No surprise there, either. Let us know if you find any.

 

[The Barbarian]

I just want to leave one more post for those people who question the theory of evolution or anyone curious about evolution but want to know what hasn't been proven yet.

Your list has same major falsehoods. I'm guessing you weren't aware of them. AI can be useful, but if it comes to something you don't understand very well, be very cautious.

Unproven Aspects of Evolution​

Origin of Life​

• The exact process of how life originated on Earth remains unclear. While various hypotheses exist, no definitive evidence has been found to explain the transition from non-living chemical compounds to living organisms.

One of the most common YEC superstitions is that evolution is about the origin of life. Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. If God had magically poofed living things into existence rather than as He says in Genesis, evolution would still work exactly the way we see it working now.

Mechanisms of Evolution​

• While natural selection and genetic drift are well-supported mechanisms, other proposed mechanisms, such as the role of epigenetics or horizontal gene transfer in evolution, are still under investigation. Their full impact on evolutionary processes is not yet fully understood.

We're always learning new things about the way evolution works. None of that is a surprise to biologists.

Transitional Fossils​

• Although many transitional fossils have been discovered, gaps still exist in the fossil record. Some evolutionary transitions, particularly those leading to major groups like mammals or birds, lack comprehensive fossil evidence.

AI failed you. Even honest YECs like Dr. Kurt Wise admit that the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and birds and therapsids and mammals are very good evidence for evolution.

This is why you should always be very careful about letting AI think for you. It's not really intelligent; it just nicely simulates some kinds of mental processes.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

Previously you said scientists said "you have to believe us" and no matter how many times I asked you for an example, you didn't even bother to reply.

So until you give an example of what you just claimed about people here, I'm going to assume it's the same as what you said about scientists.

Isn't it obvious - macroevolution, the theory of evolution, darwinism. Alot of scientist put a fit up when schools teach, in addition to evolution, alternate thoughts on the origin of life. If the theory of evolution were absolute fact then we wouldn't have to say there are alternate thoughts on the origin of life but evolution is just a theory (though many scientists defend it like it's the gospel truth on everything.

Plus alot of thoughts on many space topics - dark matter, the galaxy at the furtherest reaches of the universe, dark energy, black holes. Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Missing Lynx found:

Lynx issiodorensis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL

 

[Hans Blaster]

Isn't it obvious - macroevolution, the theory of evolution, darwinism.

"macroevolution" is a name used for large, or large accumulations of, evolutionary changes, particularly things like speciation, or speciation that leads (eventually) to separate larger groups (families, orders, etc.) among their descendants.

"the Theory of Evolution" is the broad set of scientific ideas for the understanding the development of life and the origin of species.

"darwinism" is at best a description for the early forms of evolutionary theory, but it is outdated and not used in science. Typically the term is used to treat "evolutionary thinking" as a dogma by opponents of the science.

Alot of scientist put a fit up when schools teach, in addition to evolution, alternate thoughts on the origin of life.

1. When it happens, it is far more than "the scientist" that will make public complaints.
2. These complaints are about teaching non-scientific ideas in science classes, most of which are religious in nature.
3. They are also about teaching religious doctrine, since most of these "alternative ideas" are religion and the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools violates the law.

If the theory of evolution were absolute fact then we wouldn't have to say there are alternate thoughts on the origin of life but evolution is just a theory (though many scientists defend it like it's the gospel truth on everything.

Science doesn't deal in "absolute fact" and even if we did, religion has never been impeded by fact from believing contrary things.

Plus alot of thoughts on many space topics - dark matter, the galaxy at the furtherest reaches of the universe, dark energy, black holes. Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.

(These are astronomy/astrophysics/cosmology rather than "space topics". And none of these are on topic with the thread.)

The most distant observed galaxy and black holes are *facts* as they *HAVE BEEN OBSERVED*.

Dark matter is an explanation for certain measurements of the properties of galaxies, the clumping of matter in the Universe.

Dark energy is a hypothesis to explain the observed expansion rate of the Universe.

 

[BCP1928]

Isn't it obvious - macroevolution, the theory of evolution, darwinism. Alot of scientist put a fit up when schools teach, in addition to evolution, alternate thoughts on the origin of life.

Of course they do, when those "alternative thoughts" are taught as science.

If the theory of evolution were absolute fact then we wouldn't have to say there are alternate thoughts on the origin of life but evolution is just a theory (though many scientists defend it like it's the gospel truth on everything.

No, they just defend it as the only credible scientific theory, which it is.

Plus alot of thoughts on many space topics - dark matter, the galaxy at the furtherest reaches of the universe, dark energy, black holes. Many times scientists make it sound as if these are facts and not theories.

All you have to do to make it stop "sounding" like that is offer credible alternative scientific theories. Many scientists are doing that routinely in those areas, as knowledge in those fields is advancing rapidly.