Evolution as a Life Giving Process

[Brightmoon]

The Cosmos is here so something larger
and more complex than the entire Cosmos caused it.

like what? I’d honestly say that was conjecture but my field isn’t physics or astronomy so I’m letting you come up with information

 

[Valetic]

Sure - domestic roses Have 7, 14, 28 or 35 chromosomes depending on the species. As you see these chromosome counts are all multiples of seven . There is also both macaroni wheat and bread wheat . And don’t forget raphanobrassica ( of course they’ve changed the name since I was a kid but it’s easy to find) raphanobrassica is the offspring of a radish and a cabbage. The plant is healthy and fertile with other rsphanobrassicas but not with either parent species . This is all macroevolution that’s easy to observe. Usually happens in plants but has happened in animals

I don't see how this is macro evolution when they're all the same kind.

 

[Heissonear]

Evolution DOES NOT address the origin of life. Since it is hard to believe that you, of all people don’t know this, how is it that you are not engaging in deliberate misrepresentation?

My poor wording during drafting - it should have been directed as proper to the existing lifeforms on earth; origin of lifeforms that have existed past and present.

My mistake.

 

[Brightmoon]

Kind doesn’t have a scientific meaning. Do you mean species like in Homo sapiens ?Or genera if you talk about the canids. ? Or entire Clades of many genera if you’re speaking of beetles or even larger clades with insects families.

Species can have several different meanings depending on whether you’re talking about parthenogenic animals , asexual organisms, organisms that have sex and how they have sex . There are also cryptospecies which look alike to us but that won’t or can’t mate. There are ring species like the Atlantic gulls and the California salamanders .

 

[Valetic]

Kind doesn’t have a scientific meaning. Do you mean species like in Homo sapiens ?Or genera if you talk about the canids. ? Or entire Clades of many genera if you’re speaking of beetles or even larger clades with insects families.

Species can have several different meanings depending on whether you’re talking about parthenogenic animals , asexual organisms, organisms that have sex and how they have sex . There are also cryptospecies which look alike to us but that won’t or can’t mate. There are ring species like the Atlantic gulls and the California salamanders .

I'm not a scientist but God knows the sciences better than any mortal man, you may find cool little intricacies in the genetic makeup of species and their reproductive systems and etc. I mean you could spend a lifetime researching ants and still not get enough.

My point is that none of these small intricacies in very few species of life consistently validate reason to say "this is evidence for evolution" or "this is how everything evolves", I can tell you despite your endeavors it will never happen.

Sure there's evidence for evolution, but it's stealing evidence that actually points to the truth. Maybe it's not that maniacal but in essence that's the jist of what's going on.

 

[SkyWriting]

I don't see how this is macro evolution when they're all the same kind.

"Kind" means the offspring look like the parents. That's all it means.
They look like the same KIND.

 

[John Bowen]

Quantum Physics if you study it says how a scientist thinks can control the outcome of a experiment the very atoms move based on how a scientist thinks 80 yrs of experiments prove it.It proves nothing just evolves on it own , but everything is interconnected as Issac Newton proved in the law for every action there is a reaction. What Jesus was saying 2000 yrs ago " If I be lifted up all men will be lifted up also " Look at known history before B.C. and A.D and where we are today quite a huge difference that no one can really deny .

 

[Valetic]

"Kind" means the offspring look like the parents. That's all it means.
They look like the same KIND.

And?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

You can't show me a single piece of evidence that we all have a common ancestor?

Every living organism is made up of cells.
The genetic material in all cells is DNA.
In all cells, this DNA is double stranded.
In all cells, this DNA forms RNA which forms proteins.
In all cells, there is a cytoplasm.
In all cells, the genetic code is a triplet.
In all cells, the genetic code is non-overlapping.
In all cells, the genetic code is universal.
In all cells transcription and translation takes place.
Is that enough?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

And?

And therefore, your "kind" argument is crap.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolutionists have stated for two centuries that life on Earth came about through evolution.

That's just not true.
Evolution explains the rise of biodiversity. Not of life itself. It doesn't address the origins of life.

Can't you get anything right?

But since Darwin's days Earth Scientists have only unearthed lifeforms without a sequence of fossils between them.

Patently false again.

In other words, between any two different lifeforms there has been a complete gap of missing fossils that showed one lifeform -through sequential morphological details - demonstratedly changed into another lifeform.

This is a lie. See above.

This is very very odd. Zero fossils showing that evolution is by scientific evidence a life giving process.

Evolution isn't a life giving process.
Darwin's book was called "on the origins of species". Not "on the origins of life".

At this point in time, year 2018, evolution lacks the very proof it says it produces.

False. See above.
Also see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phylogenetic_tree#/media/File:Tree_of_life_SVG.svg
https://www.khanacademy.org/science...l-selection/a/lines-of-evidence-for-evolution
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/lines_01

In the fossil record and in modern times all we see are species of animals.

What else did you expect?
Every organism that ever lived belonged to a certain species.

By way of scientific investigation and evidence we are now at the point in time evolution is not based on science but on conjecture.

So you keep saying.
Eventhough everyone here keeps demonstrating the exact opposite.
Denial: not just a river in Egypt.

Evolution can no longer be presented/promoted to the masses as the only way life past and present has come about on Earth.

Indeed. It never was.
It explains the origins of biodiversity.

The God of the Bible can no longer be stiff-armed and pushed aside in how life on Earth came about.

lol!!!!

What's next? The Creator of the Bible unfolding His Purpose in the Latter Times?

What's next? Same old, same old: more denial, more preaching, more lies.

Evolutionists diehards resistant to give up their more than a century old position of how life came about on Earth, even by many words of conjecture?

Evolution doesn't address the origins of life. It addresses the origins of species.

Maybe it's time for you to give up bronze age ideas on how earth and life came about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Could it be that this is a lie of the devil to discredit the word of God?

Yes, yes,...

Biology is a conspiracy on the scale that the world has never seen before...
Millions of scientists, all over the world, atheists as well as theists, spanning multiple generations are all in on it.

They make you take a blood oath when enrolling in a university in any biology course.

Yep, makes perfect sense!!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you are telling me we can observe plants macro evolve over time?

Where do you think brussel sprouts, broccoli, cabbage, etc came from?

 

[DogmaHunter]

What evidence shows that every species was able to speciate that way?

Their collective DNA.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't see how this is macro evolution when they're all the same kind.

By that logic, humans and chimps are the same "kind".

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm not a scientist but God knows the sciences better than any mortal man, you may find cool little intricacies in the genetic makeup of species and their reproductive systems and etc. I mean you could spend a lifetime researching ants and still not get enough.

My point is that none of these small intricacies in very few species of life consistently validate reason to say "this is evidence for evolution" or "this is how everything evolves", I can tell you despite your endeavors it will never happen.

Sure there's evidence for evolution, but it's stealing evidence that actually points to the truth. Maybe it's not that maniacal but in essence that's the jist of what's going on.

I think it's hilarious how you start this post by saying that you don't have any expertise on the subject, and then proceed by saying that all those that do have such expertise, are wrong.

You should reflect on that for a second and ask yourself if that is rational and sensible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

"Kind" means the offspring look like the parents. That's all it means.
They look like the same KIND.

So it's all about superficial "appearances"?

 

[AV1611VET]

* Homo ergaster
* Homo heidelbergenesis
* Homo sapiens
* Homo habilis
* Homo erectus
* Homo neanderthalensis

They're all men, aren't they?

 

[DogmaHunter]

They're all men, aren't they?

They are all "homo". They are not all "homo sapiens".
Men = homo sapiens.

If you were to meet them in real life, you wouldn't call them "humans".
The oldest ones, you'ld consider them more like a new kind of ape like chimps and gorilla's yet more "human-like". Just like a chimp is more "human-like" compared to a macaque for example.

 

[AV1611VET]

By that logic, humans and chimps are the same "kind".

Here is the Biblical definition of "kind":

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

I would say the closest [plutoed] word academia has for "kind" is "genus."

If that's not good enough, then make up another word for it.

If academia can pluto "child" to "fetus" ... then act like it understands, it can certainly pluto "kind" to [whatever] and act like it understands.