Evolution happens

[Tinker Grey]

Where Universe came from,

Not evolution.

where and how life itself originated!

Not evolution. Note that Theistic Evolutionists believe God originated life and intended it to evolve.

Try again.

 

[Astrid]

You just want the easy questions answered.

The Universe probably always existed in some form, but only recently began expanding. (Not sure why.)

Life is just a self-organizing, self-replicating chemical process. I would check there.

As if all manner of complex organic molecules didnt self- assemble!

 

[Shemjaza]

Where Universe came from, where and how life itself originated!

Neither is a part of the theory of evolution and neither is a specific point.

In fact, if the answer to both questions was "It began as a miracle from Yeshua." then the evidence for evolution would still be present.

Is there anything about how life develops, changes and is evidenced to have developed and changed that specifically requires faith?

 

[stevil]

DNA is the "program" that determines everything about a creature. To claim that it is purely a result of time plus chance makes about as much sense as expecting to get the works of Shakespeare out of an explosion in a scrabble factory.

You forgot the "selection" part of it, which makes it non random and progressive.
Time isn't quite right either. It is about "descent" meaning generational. A person does not evolve no matter how long they live, but the human species evolves over the generations.

 

[Mr Laurier]

How did life originate, how did non living now become living?

A totally separate topic.
Abiogenesis is a chemical reaction affecting organic molecules.
It is NOT covered by evolutionary biology.
But good use of the red herring falacy

 

[Mr Laurier]

dating processes totally screwed up!

How so?
Or are you commenting on your personal life?

 

[Aussie Pete]

You forgot the "selection" part of it, which makes it non random and progressive.
Time isn't quite right either. It is about "descent" meaning generational. A person does not evolve no matter how long they live, but the human species evolves over the generations.

And you've nailed the problem. Humans and species generally adapt. They do not evolve. Conflating evolution and and adaptation is intellectually dishonest. Adaptation is observable and based on the genetic diversity already inherent in a creature. Evolution is not observable and has no basis in fact.

In order to evolve, a creature has to pass on an appropriate gene to it's offspring. Not only that, another creature of the same species but opposite gender has to produce the same genetic change at the same time. The change has to be one of the very few that are not erased by the remarkable gene correction process that is built into all life. Then the change has to be beneficial. Then the male and female have to mate and produce viable offspring. By the time all this comes to pass, the conditions that applied to make the change useful may well have passed. The earth is not a static, stable and repeating system. It's changing constantly.

The code for all creatures is embedded. There are certainly variations within species. But a process that turns a crocodile into a kangaroo? No way.

 

[Aussie Pete]

A totally separate topic.
Abiogenesis is a chemical reaction affecting organic molecules.
It is NOT covered by evolutionary biology.
But good use of the red herring falacy

Without abiogenesis there is no life - unless God created it. Without life there is no evolution. Evolutionists dodge this issue because they know that spontaneous life is impossible. That means it had to be created. That poses the question, by who? Abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

 

[Astrid]

Without abiogenesis there is no life - unless God created it. Without life there is no evolution. Evolutionists dodge this issue because they know that spontaneous life is impossible. That means it had to be created. That poses the question, by who? Abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

Making things up is a poor argument, however good it may feel
to pretend( rather ironically) to be more honest, and of course
tovknow more than any scientist on earth.

Regardless, you got some things right. Of course theres no
evolution with out life. You are exactly correct, tho its kind of
an obvious point nobody would argue.

But then you go off the rails to clarin that you, or anyone,
" knows" abio is impossible. Simply not true.

Your " created" is a guess. It might be true. Who knows?

But- what difference does it make? Evolution is exactly the same
regardless of how life started.

Its like auto mechanics, you dont need to know where iron and petroleum
originated. The mechanics are unchanged if god made physical laws, or didnt.

You can find no fault in the theory of evolution. Diverting to the matter of " origins"
is arguing a different topic.

 

[Tanj]

And you've nailed the problem. Humans and species generally adapt. They do not evolve. Conflating evolution and and adaptation is intellectually dishonest. Adaptation is observable and based on the genetic diversity already inherent in a creature. Evolution is not observable and has no basis in fact.

In order to evolve, a creature has to pass on an appropriate gene to it's offspring. Not only that, another creature of the same species but opposite gender has to produce the same genetic change at the same time. The change has to be one of the very few that are not erased by the remarkable gene correction process that is built into all life. Then the change has to be beneficial. Then the male and female have to mate and produce viable offspring. By the time all this comes to pass, the conditions that applied to make the change useful may well have passed. The earth is not a static, stable and repeating system. It's changing constantly.

The code for all creatures is embedded. There are certainly variations within species. But a process that turns a crocodile into a kangaroo? No way.

None of that is even close to true. You don't get to be the arbiter of words, which ironically is incredibly intellectually dishonest of you. Your definition of what it takes to "evolve" is pure fantasy. The requirement not only that a change be homozygous but also that it derive from the parental line about as realistic as Hansel and Gretel. I am also fascinated to hear more about this remarkable gene correction process that you made up as well.

Everything you wrote here is either pure fiction or misunderstanding from profound ignorance.

 

[stevil]

And you've nailed the problem. Humans and species generally adapt. They do not evolve.

It's the same thing.
Genetics becoming more adapted over generations to a changing environment is evolution.

Conflating evolution and and adaptation is intellectually dishonest. Adaptation is observable and based on the genetic diversity already inherent in a creature. Evolution is not observable and has no basis in fact.

Evolution requires change on the DNA level and we get that with random mutations.
Evolution also requires the changes to be selected for, otherwise our bodies will become useless with all the negative random mutations.
Evolution sees bigger changes in times when the environment changes, because all of a sudden a different trait becomes more beneficial for survival and procreation.
Adaptation would be considered a process of change that occurs due to a change in environment. It is a a consequence of evolution.

In order to evolve, a creature has to pass on an appropriate gene to it's offspring. Not only that, another creature of the same species but opposite gender has to produce the same genetic change at the same time.

That's not true. We have dominant and recessive genes.

The change has to be one of the very few that are not erased by the remarkable gene correction process that is built into all life.

Yes, change takes a long time to happen, our systems are good and not making mistakes. But mistakes do happen.

Then the change has to be beneficial. Then the male and female have to mate and produce viable offspring.

Yes, this part is good.

By the time all this comes to pass, the conditions that applied to make the change useful may well have passed.

True, we have ever changing conditions. Birds might evolve from short beaks to long beaks and then they might evolve from long beaks to short beaks. Evolution is always happening, all the time. Just hard to notice in the short term, and when the environment changes significantly and for a significant period of time, then significant changes happen in the forms of creatures.

The earth is not a static, stable and repeating system. It's changing constantly.

Yes. We are constantly having evolution happen, creatures go extinct, other creatures change form over generations.

The code for all creatures is embedded. There are certainly variations within species. But a process that turns a crocodile into a kangaroo? No way.

Evolution would be disproven if a crocodile gives birth to a kangaroo.

 

[Yttrium]

And you've nailed the problem. Humans and species generally adapt. They do not evolve. Conflating evolution and and adaptation is intellectually dishonest. Adaptation is observable and based on the genetic diversity already inherent in a creature. Evolution is not observable and has no basis in fact.

Biologic evolution is defined as the change in frequency of alleles in a population over time/generations. That's what you call "adaptation", but the scientific name for it is biologic evolution. Mutation and selection. It's observable. We can watch it happening in laboratory conditions. It's not intellectually dishonest to use the proper definition for the scientific term.

The Theory of Evolution is common ancestors. That's the part you have a problem with. ToE. Just say ToE. We'll know what you're talking about with that acronym.

 

[Astrophile]

Without abiogenesis there is no life - unless God created it. Without life there is no evolution. Evolutionists dodge this issue because they know that spontaneous life is impossible. That means it had to be created. That poses the question, by who? Abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

Even if your argument is valid, it does not necessarily follow that the creator is the god of Christianity or Judaism.

 

[Astrid]

Even if your argument is valid, it does not necessarily follow that the creator is the god of Christianity or Judaism.

" if it had been valid"

 

[Mr Laurier]

Without abiogenesis there is no life - unless God created it.

Or Elf created it. Or Unicorn created it.
But so what.

Evolutionists dodge this issue because they know that spontaneous life is impossible.

Evolutionists continue to not exist.
Kinda like your "issue"

That means it had to be created.

Or not.

That poses the question, by who?

Only if you must resort to question begging.

Abiogenesis and evolution are inextricably linked.

Only in the minds of creationists

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionists continue to not exist.

I wish.

 

[Mr Laurier]

I wish.

lol.
Go look at the real world.

 

[Astrid]

Or Elf created it. Or Unicorn created it.
But so what.

Evolutionists continue to not exist.
Kinda like your "issue"

Or not.

Only if you must resort to question begging.

Only in the minds of creationists

Making stuff up is the only way creationists can have
something to argue against.
It isnt clever.
Any fool can make up something stupid then show how
dumb it is.
As if someone who knows the field is fooled into thinking
the creationist knows something about science!

 

[AV1611VET]

Making stuff up is the only way creationists can have something something to argue against.

We don't have to make something up.

We can support what we believe with Scripture, and you guys will say the Scripture reference was made up.

For example, we can talk about the Exodus, and you'll say the Exodus is a myth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

For example, we can talk about the Exodus, and you'll say the Exodus is a myth.

I think you missed by a book if you want to talk about evolution.