Evolution happens

[Buzzard3]

deleted

 

[Yttrium]

Let me get this straight... you don't find it odd that it took human beings about 300,000 years to start domesticating animals?

Here's something to consider: breeding animals to make them more docile is a form of evolutionary selection pressure. Over many generation, a population of animals can become easier to domesticate.

Just sayin'.

 

[Buzzard3]

Except that there's no reason that as soon as humans came onto the scene, we should have just instantly been able to do everything we can do now.

Who's made that claim? Not me.

 

[Buzzard3]

And still. NO THEY DO NOT>

Aren't you being a bit pedantic? No one is claiming humans evolved directly from fish.

 

[Buzzard3]

There remains no Darwinist folklore

Ya coulda fooled me.

 

[Buzzard3]

Tomato / Tomatto

Potato / Potatto

How can you deny that evolution happens? Tadpoles evolve into frogs in a matter of weeks, so bacteria can surely evolve into humans in a few billion years!

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let me get this straight... you don't find it odd that it took human beings about 300,000 years to start domesticating animals?

No, I don't.

300,000 years ago aren't some magic starting point when the "starter's pistol" went off and began humanity.

Our ancestors have been walking upright (on two feet) for over 3 million years, using fire for over 500,000 years. Over the years we have accumulated new technologies and changes to our anatomies.

In recent millennia that pace of technological development has increased. Going into settlements with concentrations of people about 10,000 years ago was the first driver of that acceleration. Writing and technologies around writing have further accelerated the development and spread of technologies.

Animal domestication was just one of those things connected to fixed settlements.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can you deny that evolution happens?

I believe in microevolution, not not macroevolution.

Tadpoles evolve into frogs in a matter of weeks,

Technically they "morph" into frogs.

... so bacteria can surely evolve into humans in a few billion years!

Unless they hit a barrier that God ordained they cannot cross.

The Bible only allows for 6025 years of existence.

 

[Buzzard3]

You can't test it directly. What you can do is arrange all the known eyes in order of complexity, and see if you can come up with genetic paths from simple to complex. If you do come up with such a genetic path, you can't actually demonstrate that it happened that way, but you do demonstrate that the evidence still fits within the theory.

Thank you, but it seems to me that your argument contains a fundamental flaw: Lining up a sequence of eyes (of increasing complexity) may well be evidence of EVOLUTION, but it tells us nothing at all about what MECHANISM was responsible for that evolution.

So said evolutionary sequence is NOT a test a test for the theory that the eye is a result of natural selection and mutations. If a theory cannot be tested, it doesn't even qualify as science and is just a story.

Now, if you were able to find something that blocks development from simple to complex at some points, then the theory has a problem. It would certainly be fun to find something like that, but so far we seem to be out of luck. There's no known limit in the genes to how much accumulated change that can eventually take place.

I think it's fair to say that the science of genetics could still be in its infancy and that what has been discovered so far (as impressive as it is) could be just the tip of the iceberg. And it's entirely possible that some of what scientists "know" now could turn out to be dead wrong in the future.

 

[Buzzard3]

Our ancestors have been walking upright (on two feet) for over 3 million years, using fire for over 500,000 years. Over the years we have accumulated new technologies and changes to our anatomies.

Oh, so our ancestors were smart enough to use fire 500,000 years ago (so the story goes, at least), but they weren't smart enough to domesticate animals then - that feat wasn't achieved until about 490,000 years later. And his scenario makes sense to you?

 

[Buzzard3]

I believe in microevolution, not not macroevolution.

Technically they "morph" into frogs.Unless they hit a barrier that God ordained they cannot cross.

The Bible only allows for 6025 years of existence.

Not sure if you realized I was joking in that post. Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs and I don't believe humans evolved naturally from bacteria.

 

[Buzzard3]

Polonium / Plutonium

Are you comparing inanimate matter to living organisms?

 

[AV1611VET]

Not sure if you realized I was joking in that post. Tadpoles don't evolve into frogs and I don't believe humans evolved naturally from bacteria.

-- Whew!

I suspected it, but made the wrong assumption.

Sorry about that!

 

[Yttrium]

Thank you, but it seems to me that your argument contains a fundamental flaw: Lining up a sequence of eyes (of increasing complexity) may well be evidence of EVOLUTION, but it tells us nothing at all about what MECHANISM was responsible for that evolution.

The mechanism is mutation and selection.

So said evolutionary sequence is NOT a test a test for the theory that the eye is a result of natural selection and mutations. If a theory cannot be tested, it doesn't even qualify as science and is just a story.

It can be tested. You seem to want to be able to reproduce the entire historical development of the eye in a lab, which of course would be ludicrous. We need to be able to show that a genetic paths can exist, and that there are genetic relationships in the various types of eyes that support such paths.

 

[Buzzard3]

Ive yet to find a creationist who who is not clueless

What about the scientists at evolutionnews.org?
In addition to them there are quite a few other scientists who are creationists.

 

[Buzzard3]

Finally, if you identify the Creator with the God of the Bible, it seems strange to me that a being who has been able to create this vast and wonderful universe is unable to make the inhabitants of one small planet orbiting a medium-sized star in the outskirts of a medium-sized galaxy behave themselves.

God gave us free will ... that means humans can choose to do good or to do evil. God does not prevent us from exercising our free will.

 

[Buzzard3]

-- Whew!

I suspected it, but made the wrong assumption.

Sorry about that!

No worries, mate. Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What about the scientists at evolutionnews.org?
In addition to them there are quite a few other scientists who are creationists.

evolution"news".org is a creationist/anti-evolution propaganda site. It is media, and not a group of scientists.

 

[Buzzard3]

evolution"news".org is a creationist/anti-evolution propaganda site. It is media, and not a group of scientists.

That's beside the point ... the point is that some creationists are scientists.
Take Günter Bechly (evolutionnew.org) for example:

"Günter Bechly is a German paleo-entomologist who specializes in the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp. dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals. He served as curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany. He is also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Bechly earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from Eberhard-Karls-University in Tübingen, Germany."
(discovery.org)


"Günter Bechly is a distinguished scientist focusing on the fossil history of insects. He has authored or co-authored about 150 scientific publications, including a co-edited book published by Cambridge University Press and a popular science book on evolution. He has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution. He has been interviewed widely in German media and served as a science advisor for two natural history documentaries on the BBC."
(freescience.today)

 

[Hans Blaster]

That's beside the point ... the point is that some creationists are scientists.
Take Günter Bechly (evolutionnew.org) for example:

"Günter Bechly is a German paleo-entomologist who specializes in the fossil history and systematics of insects (esp. dragonflies), the most diverse group of animals. He served as curator for amber and fossil insects in the department of paleontology at the State Museum of Natural History (SMNS) in Stuttgart, Germany. He is also a Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture. Dr. Bechly earned his Ph.D. in geosciences from Eberhard-Karls-University in Tübingen, Germany."
(discovery.org)


"Günter Bechly is a distinguished scientist focusing on the fossil history of insects. He has authored or co-authored about 150 scientific publications, including a co-edited book published by Cambridge University Press and a popular science book on evolution. He has discovered and named more than 160 new species, and has 10 biological groups named in his honor. He has served on the editorial boards of two scientific journals, and has organized five large public exhibitions on Earth history and evolution. He has been interviewed widely in German media and served as a science advisor for two natural history documentaries on the BBC."
(freescience.today)

Here's the only question that matters regarding Dr. Bechly:

Does Bechly use creationist ideas in his scientific publications or book from CUP?