Evolution is a Fact

[laconicstudent]

I was not aware there was a incompatibility between people who believe in evolution and christains. Your post is a fallacy of false dichotomy (choice).

The bible verse he quoted isn't even vaguely relevant to the discussion. And your right, there is no dichotomy

 

[USincognito]

I was unaware observed science included observation of a single cell mutating into us humans. Is there a You Tube video on that?

Are you asking to see a paramecium give birth to a baby or for humans to have been around observing single cell life evolving until it eventually led to humans? I'm just trying to clarify what sort of rediculous goalpost you're setting up here and how far from reality you've placed it.

 

[hangback]

Are you in denial of Jesus Christ.

You were in denial of Jesus Christ before someone indoctrinated you, what if those same people had been Muslims? you would be a Muslim now? one of these days you're going to wake up and when you do it will be the worst day of your life because you will realise what an absolute fool you have been, you have been taken for a ride, some were lucky because they get off early, some are not so lucky because they stayed on until it was too late for them, they are the ones who feel utterly gutted, it's then that the hate sets in.

 

[Meshach]

Are you asking to see a paramecium give birth to a baby or for humans to have been around observing single cell life evolving until it eventually led to humans? I'm just trying to clarify what sort of rediculous goalpost you're setting up here and how far from reality you've placed it.

You got it, macro-evolution. I bolded part of your statement to clarify where I stand .

 

[AV1611VET]

You got it, macro-evolution. I bolded part of your statement to clarify where I stand .

The Theory of Evolution has undergone some heavy-duty changes since they began losing debates with creationists.

Three major changes come to mind:

1. They stopped including abiogenesis in with their theory, and washed their hands of it.
2. They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "genera".
3. They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "macroevolution".

 

[Psudopod]

You got it, macro-evolution. I bolded part of your statement to clarify where I stand .

Small changes over time lead to large differences between decendents and ancestors. Not understanding how macro-evolution works is like not understanding how lots of milimetres add up to be a kilometre.

 

[CoderHead]

Well, we've already had the discussion on why an omnipotent creator would need to make any creature similar to another if they're not supposed to be related.

And no creationist here had any good answers for it then, so I don't expect you'll have any good answers for it now.

I'd like to see an answer to this one as well. It's intriguing.

 

[Psudopod]

1. They stopped including abiogenesis in with their theory, and washed their hands of it.

Abiogenesis was never part of the theory of evolution. Evolution explains the patterns of diversity of life. The origin of life has no baring on it. In fact, evolution works fine on non-living imperfect replicators, for example genetic algorythms.

Demanding that abiogenesis be part of evolution is like demanding organic chemistry include stella necleuosynthesis. They are related, but not depended on each other.

 

[AV1611VET]

Abiogenesis was never part of the theory of evolution.

I disagree.

Evolution explains the patterns of diversity of life. The origin of life has no baring on it.

That's probably why they jettisoned abiogenesis from evolution; creationists made this point against it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I disagree.

Your disagreement doesn't change reality.

" There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

It would seem that Darwin was just fine with a lack of abiogenesis.

 

[Sanguis]

The Theory of Evolution has undergone some heavy-duty changes since they began losing debates with creationists.

Three major changes come to mind:

They stopped including abiogenesis in with their theory, and washed their hands of it.

Abiogenesis never had anything to do with evolution. Ever. They are, and always have been, completely seperate.

They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "genera".

Not as far as I'm aware.

A genus is a form of classification. It's a name.

Say, if we stopped calling gravity "gravity", and instead called it something else. What we called it wouldn't matter, it'd still be a force that pulls mass together, with an equal and opposite attraction.

They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "macroevolution".

Because the only difference between "macro" and "micro" is timescale. It's a pointless term, it's like saying "That blue car going 30mph for an hour, will have traveled 30 miles, whereas, that red car, moving at 50mph will have traveled 50 miles in an hour. Let's call the distance traveled 'microdistance and macrodistance!'" It's pointless. It's creationists who think there's some kind of magical difference.

 

[Loudmouth]

95% of ALL known fossils are marine invertebrates, 4.7% are algae and plants, about 0.2% are insects and other invertebrates, and only about 0.1% are vertebrates. Of this 0.1% only the smallest imaginable fraction of vertebrate fossils consist of primates. (humans, apes, monkeys and lemurs). And it is truly amazing what conclusions one comes to when they find these rare fossils. A different interpretation based on a different presupposition. Must I also insert fallible?

Then please tell us what features a true transitional between humans and a common ancestor with chimps should have. I can't get a single creationist to tell me this.

GENETIC MATHEMATICS

human100 %chimpanzee86.7 % nematode75 %

Citation please.

That puts the Chimpanzee at

LESS than HALFWAY
between a Worm and Human!

All living organisms are equidistant from the universal common ancestor. You might as well argue that Spanish is half way between French and Latin.

 

[AV1611VET]

It would seem that Darwin was just fine with a lack of abiogenesis.

Darwin didn't sit in my science class in 1970.

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess it all depends or your presuppositions. For it is not the similarities that will cause the right conclusion. But the differences.

That's correct. When we compare the similarities AND differences it forms a nested hierarchy, the very pattern that the theory of evolution predicts we should see. This is also the pattern that no creationist can explain.

 

[Sanguis]

I disagree.That's probably why they jettisoned abiogenesis from evolution; creationists made this point against it.

Um. No.

You clearly don't understand either.

EVOLUTION: Genetic mutation over a period of time that amounts to physical changes, and speciation.

That's what it always has been, that's what it always will be.

ABIOGENESIS: Life (Self replicating cells, with a need to metabolize) spontaneously (Doesn't mean what you'd think it means, in a scientific context.) forming from organic matter that was not previously living.

That's what it always has been, that's what it always will be.

Disagree all you like, jus' makes you look stupid.

 

[Sanguis]

Darwin didn't sit in my science class in 1970.

Thankfully. It's quite clear your science class in 1970 was epic fail.

 

[Loudmouth]

I was unaware observed science included observation of a single cell mutating into us humans.

I wasn't aware that we had to observe a man directly fertilizing an egg in order to establish paternity. We establish paternity by comparing DNA. It is no different for establishing common ancestry between species.

Events in the past leave evidence we can test and observe in the present just as the fertilization event produces a genome that we can test for paternity. In court, evidence produced at the scene is later used to reconstruct the event for which there are no eyewitnesses.

 

[Loudmouth]

The Theory of Evolution has undergone some heavy-duty changes since they began losing debates with creationists.

Three major changes come to mind:

They stopped including abiogenesis in with their theory, and washed their hands of it.

Please show where they did use abiogenesis, ever.

They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term "genera".

Since when?

They are now distancing themselves from the use of the term

"macroevolution".

We only point out the difference between the scientific definition of macroevolution and the creationist definition of macroevolution. It's not our fault that dishonest creationists redefine scientific terms to fit their agenda.

 

[Loudmouth]

Darwin didn't sit in my science class in 1970.

It appears that you weren't either.

 

[Sanguis]

It appears that you weren't either.