Evolution happens

[Astrid]

Would it make more sense to trust in a mere unproven theory, or scriptural truth?

That is not the right question, at all. I will be glad to explain, but play fair.
How about a proper response to what i asked, first.

No theory ever has been, or ever will be proved so
thats part of what is wrong with your question.

Ftm, nobody has ever been proven guilty or innocent
in court.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Would it make more sense to trust in a mere unproven theory, or scriptural truth?

Scientific theories are successful explanatory frameworks supported by large bodies of evidence. (Or colloquially "proof".)

 

[Astrid]

Scientific theories are successful explanatory frameworks supported by large bodies of evidence. (Or colloquially "proof".)

" mere unproven theory" is so cringe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would it make more sense to trust in a mere unproven theory, or scriptural truth?

Theory can be properly tested and confirmed. How would you properly test your beliefs? One note, if your test does not have a possibility of failure, or in other words your beliefs being wrong, then you do not have a proper test.

 

[Think...]

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?

The 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 theories 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.

 

[Astrid]

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?

The 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 theories 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.

As a rule, no, the impossinilitirs such as you make up and declare
are not given any thought. Why would anyone honor such nonsense?

Of course, you've not the faintest tinge of a clue what you
are talking about, but what is that to stop you proclaiming
you know better than any researcher on earth?
And why would that small thing stop you when your
own good book ( see false witness, deceit) and your
own conscience dont stop you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

The 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 theories 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.

Life never decided that and you are making the error of assuming a goal to evolution. There is none. There are only results. And guess what happens when one has a population and a portion of that population does a better job of reproducing and passing one one's genes than other members of the population? I will tell you. Those that cannot compete are slowly replaced. And since environments change with time there is no guarantee that one particular setup will always be best.



There is no assumption of an intelligence in evolution nor no need for one. In fact the people claiming that an intelligence behind evolution cannot seem to find any scientific evidence that supports those beliefs. Why would anyone believe an idea that had no reliable supporting evidence?

 

[Shemjaza]

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?

The 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 theories 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 have answered this question about asexual reproduction multiple times in this thread: It isn't an either/or choice. Currently living species can both asexually and sexually reproduce.

Also about the single celled vs multi celled... surely you can imagine why team work can be an advantage?

I also already answered the "Argument from specialised interaction between species", it isn't universal, some species have this kind of specialised set up, many do not, there are a multitude of small steps in between all of which can be an advantage depending on the size of the population and the changes in the environment.

You keep claiming that intelligence is necessary, but that's only if you assume the particular outcome was the original goal, it isn't and it never was a part of the theory.

Evolutionary change happens over entire populations over many, many generations... it's the culmination of small changes that just happen to be useful, not any kind of deliberate choice. The same populations will have many bad changes, just they will be less likely to be maintained in the population.

 

[ruthiesea]

Macroevolution says an ape leaves Boston, takes baby steps, and arrives in L.A. a man.

Not quite.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

The 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 theories that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence.

As I suggested before, you'd waste a lot less of your time knocking down straw men if you actually learned how evolution works.

Clearly single cells don't make decisions to transform their species; that's nonsense. Consider, you are a creature that can make decisions, but you didn't make the decision to be the product of a combination of your parent's genes and a few tens of random genetic changes. People don't make the decision to be born more attractive or less attractive, disabled or able, strong and healthy or weak and sickly, virile and fertile or infertile.

For creatures in the wild where living and competition is tough, the advantages or disadvantages they were born with make all the difference in their chances of having successful offspring that can reproduce in turn.

The result is that, over generations, the genes of the less successful members of a population tend to fade out of the population as they have relatively fewer offspring to carry those 'weak' genes, and the genes of the more successful members spread through the population as they have relatively more offspring carrying those 'strong' genes. What makes genes 'strong' or 'weak' depends on the environment, the living conditions, so what makes for success in a cold environment could well be less successful in a warmer environment, so, over generations, populations will evolve to be better adapted to the environment, as the genes of the better adapted are more likely to be passed on to future generations.

That, in a very simplified nutshell, is how evolution works. No creature has any choice about the genes they're born with, and those genes determine how successful they're likely to be in contributing to future generations.

 

[Astrophile]

Would it make more sense to trust in a mere unproven theory, or scriptural truth?

The thermodynamic theory of heat is 'a mere unproven theory', so by your argument it is possible to construct a perpetual motion machine.

I have read a lot of the scriptures, and very little of it appears to me to be true. What is your evidence that the book of Genesis is 'scriptural truth?'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The thermodynamic theory of heat is 'a mere unproven theory', so by your argument it is possible to construct a perpetual motion machine.

I have read a lot of the scriptures, and very little of it appears to me to be true. What is your evidence that the book of Genesis is 'scriptural truth?'

Scriptural truth is a special kind of truth - the truth of faith, a weak form of coherentist truth. That's why the scriptural truths of different religions can conflict.

E.T.A. "Coherentists generally agree that the specified set consists of propositions believed or held to be true. They differ on the questions of who believes the propositions and when."

 

[Subduction Zone]

The thermodynamic theory of heat is 'a mere unproven theory', so by your argument it is possible to construct a perpetual motion machine.

I am currently seeking investors:

The color is only there to make it more obvious. This has the added advantage of being able to wash your clothes while generating free power. Just scale it up so that it is large enough.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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?

It became aware of Barry White.

 

[AV1611VET]

The color is only there to make it more obvious. This has the added advantage of being able to wash your clothes while generating free power. Just scale it up so that it is large enough.

It looks like a winking smiley!

 

[Astrid]

It became aware of Barry White.

Makes more sense than the question does

 

[Gene2memE]

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

No creature decided to evolve sexual reproduction. Trying to anthropomorphise evolution is a task bound to end in failure.

Evolution only requires that a 'decision' - a change in gene function - provides some form of heritable reproductive advantage.

The evidence from fossilized organisms is that sexual reproduction is variation/combination of several other existing methods of reproduction, which probably started about 2 billion years ago. Reproduction, even in simple, single celled organisms, incrementally became increasingly diversified over the first 2.5 to 3.0 billion years of life.

Sexual reproduction has only ever become the dominant form of reproduction for multicellular eukaryotes. 99.999% of the species on earth still don't use sexual reproduction.

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

Except, that's not remotely how it would of happened. What you describe is impossible.

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?

The evolution of sex - as in, the split from haploid to diploid reproduction through gamete fusion - seems to have taken anywhere from 700 million to 900 million years.

Nothing becomes "stuck in limbo though" - there are literally dozens of intermediate stages between asexual reproduction and sexual reproduction discussed in the evolutionary literature

The 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.

I think you've just critically failed to understand both evolution and probability. Impressive, most impressive.

A lot of the theories that answer questions like these actually assume an inherent intelligence.

Cool story bro. Name some legitimate theories from evolutionary biology that "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.

Evolution isn't all about randomness. I'll give you a hint: than answer to why it isn't is contained in the title of the very first book published on the subject.

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.

Pssst: Evolving together: the biology of symbiosis, part 1

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.

You might want to check the terms of service and this sticky post: Addition to the Statement of Purpose

I'm not going to report you, but others might.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Ya ... dogs having dogs, horses having horses, rabbits having rabbits, giraffes having giraffes ...

No.

 

[Mr Laurier]

If YOU say so.

Nope.
WHETHER OR NOT I SAY SO.

Lucy was a 100% Fraud, and all honest scientists know that.

Ok. And who is this "Lucy" you invoke?

There has never once been found, and thoroughly documented, an animal in a state of transition between 'kinds'. Animals evolve within their 'kinds.' NONE evolve from one 'kind' to another 'kind.'
.

Alas, there is no clear definition of "kinds".

 

[Mr Laurier]

So AncestryDNA can go farther back than a thousand years?

If by "AncestryDNA" you mean any of those online "services" that finds your very important ancestors... then no.
Those are just an extension of those "past life regression" hucksters.

If you mean actual DNA testing? Then yes.
Cheddar Man being a very good example.