• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Evolutionists, Please provide a positive proof for Evolution ....

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Selection cannot create new species but random mutations and interbreeding can do that. As was said many times, natural selection chooses the fittest variation to survive, not create a new variation.
Supernatural selection can create new species. Natural selection is just as limited as artificial selection but supernatural selection has no such limits. Supernatural selection gets it's power from the sun.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Supernatural selection can create new species. Natural selection is just as limited as artificial selection but supernatural selection has no such limits. Supernatural selection gets it's power from the sun.

I would hope that supernatural selection got its power from God, otherwise it'd just be natural selection all over again, or are you saying that God is powered by the sun lol.
 
Upvote 0

Schroeder

Veteran
Jun 10, 2005
3,234
69
OHIO. home of THE Ohio State Buckeyes
✟26,248.00
Faith
Anabaptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
the whole foundation of the theory is evolution. They show many many many examples of evolution in process and make it seem to prove the theory of evolution. there is a huge difference form the theory of evolution and just plain old evolution. I dont believe there is any biological evidence to prove the theory. they use the fact of evolution combined with natural science or old age earth. combine the two and create the theory.
 
Upvote 0

begt

Newbie
May 1, 2011
143
1
✟22,785.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

Some obvious evidence:

1. DNA: animals and plants share the same genetic code and it creates a perfect hierarchy of evolution. Even if there were no other evidence to be found it would still be enough.

2. Lots of vestigial features. Us humans have the following e.g:

The vermiform appendix is a vestige of the cecum, an organ that would have been used to digest cellulose by humans' herbivorous ancestors.

The tailbone, wisdom teeth (we had larger jaws in the past to chew plant tissue; wisdom teeths do not fit in our small jaws), the plantaris muscle, ear muscles....

3. Fossils: Archeopteryx, Tiktaalik, Ambulocetus, Java man (Homo Erectus Erectus (and other so called missing links).
 
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟39,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
What evolution cannot explain among many other things is an ultimate cause.

So what? Neither can gravity or thermodynamics or the atomic theory of matter. All scientific theories are limited to explaining particular phenomena and I don't see you raising any objection to other aspects of science because of that. Why the double standard for evolution?


Selection cannot create new species but random mutations and interbreeding can do that.

Selection is absolutely necessary to creating new species. New species are not created by interbreeding, but by the opposite: the cessation of interbreeding--by factors which prevent interbreeding. Those factors, along with selection, generate new species. Random mutation and interbreeding would normally prevent the formation of new species. But a mutation that prevents interbreeding would be helpful in generating new species. Some such have been found.

One interesting case is hybridization accompanied by polyploidy; hybridization involves interbreeding between two closely related species, but polyploidy prevents back-crossing into the parental species, so further interbreeding is not possible. So where there were two, now there are three species.

As was said many times, natural selection chooses the fittest variation to survive, not create a new variation.

A new variation is not a new species. Without selection a new variation will only be an addition to the existing varieties in a species.
 
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Supernatural selection can create new species. Natural selection is just as limited as artificial selection but supernatural selection has no such limits. Supernatural selection gets it's power from the sun.

Feel free to back up your claims anytime now...
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married


"But this is just one experiment under admittedly contrived conditions. “What remains to be seen for me is how relevant is it to actual transitions to multicellularity,” said Srivastava.
Indeed, the authors of the PNAS study admit that selecting for yeast cells or clusters that settled most quickly isn’t exactly a “natural” selection pressure. "

Evolving Multicellularity | The Scientist

Shaking yeast like mad every 24 hours causing the daughter cells stick to the parent cell isn't exactly natural. This is the same when building the basic building blocks of life as there's no doubt man can produce them in the lab using artificial means.
 
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat

I know. What was your point? Whether or not it accurately represents primordial conditions doesn't change that evolution occurred. Obviously, developing a theoretical model for how it happened historically is the next step. Demonstrating a transition to multicellularity was quite ambitious and noteworthy enough for one publication.
 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
I know. What was your point? Whether or not it accurately represents primordial conditions doesn't change that evolution occurred. Obviously, developing a theoretical model for how it happened historically is the next step.
Like I wrote before all the evidence depends on the person dogmatically believing evolution happen.

Tyronem asked for " a positive proof for evolution that does not require any assumptions" and that link is the best you can do?
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
331
36
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟31,352.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Like I wrote before all the evidence depends on the person dogmatically believing evolution happen.

Nope, the whole reason I'm now an evolutionist is because I looked at the facts with an open and questioning mind, it was dogmatism that was keeping me as a YEC/OEC a dogma that I questioned and I'm pretty sure most evolutionists that used to be creationists would also tell of a similar tale.
 
Upvote 0

Incariol

Newbie
Apr 22, 2011
5,710
251
✟7,523.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Like I wrote before all the evidence depends on the person dogmatically believing evolution happen.

No, it depends on whether you read a scientific paper. If people aren't scientifically literate and can't understand the scientific paper, that's their shortcoming, not an issue of scientists supposedly being dogmatic.

Incidentally, your claim in a previous post that all they did was shake the specimen and cause cells to stick together is incorrect. They specifically tested for that.

 
Upvote 0

Smidlee

Veteran
May 21, 2004
7,076
749
NC, USA
✟21,162.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Are you trying to tell me evolutionist don't make dogmatic claims? I read them all the time.
Incidentally, your claim in a previous post that all they did was shake the specimen and cause cells to stick together is incorrect. They specifically tested for that.
I should have wrote they used centrifugal force instead of shaking. Also it seems the cluster were less fit which is going in the wrong direction. Yeast is already been known to colonist together.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mr.Waffles

Newbie
Jul 13, 2011
280
7
✟15,462.00
Faith
Pentecostal

You are essentially asking for something that is impossible. Evolutionary theory is fundamentally a model that attempts to explain certain sets of observed evidences, but there is no way to demonstrate the biological processes dictated by the Darwinian narrative to even be feasible, forget calling it a fact. Only goes to show how those who believe they are providing such sources of "positive proof" are either misguided or do not understand what evolution is.
 
Upvote 0