Has evolution occured?

[Speedwell]

no. i refer to a single object. no one has ever made a single object in 50,000 years.

Perhaps what you mean is, "No human has taken 50,000 years to design a single object."

What the point would be in saying such a thing is not clear.

 

[xianghua]

So you are saying that no human ever designed only a single object? How would you know? Sure, most of us have designed more than one thing, but how would you rule out that somewhere, sometime, a human designed only one single object? I don't even see the point of trying to prove something like that.

no. im saying that if someone is making an object- he will not do that in millions of years. when someone make a paint he doesnt do that in say 100 years.

 

[xianghua]

Perhaps what you mean is, "No human has taken 50,000 years to design a single object."

What the point would be in saying such a thing is not clear.

the point is that living things are best explain by instant creation and not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

no. im saying that if someone is making an object- he will not do that in millions of years. when someone make a paint he doesnt do that in say 100 years.

So what?

 

[xianghua]

So what?

so instant creation is the best explanation.

 

[Speedwell]

so instant creation is the best explanation.

For what? Human-designed objects? Just because they don't take 50,000 year to design doesn't mean that they must have been designed in an instant . I still have no idea where you are going with this.

 

[xianghua]

For what? Human-designed objects? Just because they don't take 50,000 year to design doesn't mean that they must have been designed in an instant . I still have no idea where you are going with this.

so why to prefer evolution above instant creation?

 

[Speedwell]

the point is that living things are best explain by instant creation and not evolution.

Living things are not "objects" in that sense. They are one stage in a continuous process.

 

[Speedwell]

so why to prefer evolution above instant creation?

Because evolution is plausible and the process itself is reasonably well evidenced. I see no reason to reject it in favor of "instant creation." which has no plausible explanation.

 

[pitabread]

so instant creation is the best explanation.

It's not an explanation though.

 

[xianghua]

I see no reason to reject it in favor of "instant creation." which has no plausible explanation.

its like saying that there is no plausible explanation for the existence of a robot.

 

[Speedwell]

its like saying that there is no plausible explanation for the existence of a robot.

If it is a robot it was designed and built by humans according to well-understood processes. It didn't just pop into existence.

 

[Speedwell]

so why to prefer evolution above instant creation?

Evolution says that living species have evolved and diversified over time, probably from a single original species. You don't like that idea for some reason, but many people are satisfied with it and the mechanism by which it happens is reasonably well supported by evidence.

You say that living species popped into existence from nothing fully formed and have no explanation whatever for how that happened.

And you still don't understand why many people prefer evolution?

 

[xianghua]

If it is a robot it was designed and built by humans

or any intelligent.

 

[xianghua]

Evolution says that living species have evolved and diversified over time, probably from a single original species. You don't like that idea for some reason, but many people are satisfied with it and the mechanism by which it happens is reasonably well supported by evidence.

You say that living species popped into existence from nothing fully formed and have no explanation whatever for how that happened.

And you still don't understand why many people prefer evolution?

again- a robot is best explain by creation. not evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

again- a robot is best explain by creation. not evolution.

So what? We know how robots are created. What about living species which according to you just pop into existence from nothing fully formed?

At least evolution offers a reasonable explanation of how new species come into existence, even if you don't agree with it. You offer no explanation whatever for new species popping into existence from nothing.

 

[xianghua]

So what? We know how robots are created.

we also know how genomes are created- by design:

First Minimal Synthetic Bacterial Cell

 

[Speedwell]

we also know how genomes are created- by design:

First Minimal Synthetic Bacterial Cell

They can be, but that does not demonstrate that they always must be.

 

[xianghua]

They can be, but that does not demonstrate that they always must be.

prove it. all evidence so far prove that genomes only coming from other genomes (or living creature from other living creature) . what make you think that a genome can be created from non-genome by a natural process?

 

[Speedwell]

prove it. all evidence so far prove that genomes only coming from other genomes (or living creature from other living creature) .

So you do believe in the possibility of evolution after all.

what make you think that a genome can be created from non-genome by a natural process?

What-s the difference between a genome and a non-genome? Probably there s not a hard line separating them.