proving evolution as just a "theory"

[omega2xx]

lol!

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
Eye Evolution​

Here's an interesting write-up on the different types of eyes found in nature and how they work...

Inside the Eye: Nature’s Most Exquisite Creation​

Here's some easy to follow videos if reading is too boring for you...

(I know, I know, this last one is Richard Dawkins so I won't take it personally if this prevents you listening to the science on it... so here's one more)

Then, here's some "Look At The Pictures" images where you don't have much reading to do, and very little imagining required to understand it....

None of your links included the HOW it is possible. They just said it did.

Pictures are not scientific evidence.

Now would you like to provide the HOW it happened or admit you can't?

 

[xianghua]

How are you still confused about the difference between living things and non-living things?

That's the question you ought to be asking...

read again: i talked about self replicating car.

 

[xianghua]

An animal could conceivably evolve into a different species of animal that superficially resembles a car. "Superficially resembling a car" is not the same as being a car. It would be impossible for an animal to evolve into an actual car. The reason for this is simple. Cars are not animals. Animals evolve into other animals, not into inanimate objects.

let me put it this way: if there is no stepwise way to make a car, what make you think its possible with animals?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

lol!

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia
Evolution: Library: Evolution of the Eye
Eye Evolution​

Here's an interesting write-up on the different types of eyes found in nature and how they work...

Inside the Eye: Nature’s Most Exquisite Creation​

Here's some easy to follow videos if reading is too boring for you...

(I know, I know, this last one is Richard Dawkins so I won't take it personally if this prevents you listening to the science on it... so here's one more)

Then, here's some "Look At The Pictures" images where you don't have much reading to do, and very little imagining required to understand it....

None of your links included the HOW it is possible. They just said it did.

Pictures are not scientific evidence.

Now would you like to provide the HOW it happened or admit you can't?

I'm sorry, but you're entirely too irrational to talk to. I'm not going to believe for one second that you're that stupid.

 

[doubtingmerle]

let me put it this way: if there is no stepwise way to make a car, what make you think its possible with animals?

Biological reproduction with modifications.

 

[doubtingmerle]

read again: i talked about self replicating car.

Is this "self replicating car" a plant, an animal, or a manufactured combination of minerals?

 

[xianghua]

Biological reproduction with modifications.

it cant solve the ic problem since you still deal with a system that require at least several parts for a minimal funtion. so the self replication trait isnt relevant to the question of ic.

 

[rjs330]

I have quit reading links because they NEVER provide any evidence for what they say. Feel free to cut and paste any evidence in your sources. I will only comment on what you offer as evidence.

That is SO GOOD! I have found that to be so true! All the links ever say is that it happened or give suppositions. They NEVER provide any evidence that it really did happen. It's all assumptive.

 

[pitabread]

Every time a quote refutes a doctrine of evolution, it is claimed to be taken out of context. Why don't you put it in context and we will see if it changes the statement.

I'm not the one citing it, you are. I tried looking it up and all I can find is that quote in a handle of creationist articles with a reference from 1977.

So what does the full quote say in context or do you even know?

 

[rjs330]

Prove it then. Prove that God had anything to do with anything for a start. Then, prove that their conclusions aren't concordant with the evidence. That you don't understand it doesn't invalidate it.

Ah... You talk of faith. We believers admit we have faith that the bibles description of creation is true. We didn't see it happen. Yet the evidence is all around us and we observe it. You evolutionists have faith as well. In fact you have the greater faith in that because the evidence around you by observation does not show we all came from a common ancestor.

 

[rjs330]

yes i can. a smell system need at least several parts for its minimal function:

so it can evolve stepwise by evolution.

(image from https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-odorant-receptors-are-localized-on-olfactory)

Show evidence that it did.

 

[rjs330]

No, that's what you are trying to prove; it's not a given. To say that "it "can't evolve by small steps" has not been demonstranted.

It also has not been demonstrated that it did happen. There is no evidence shown that we all evolved from a common ancestor. There is a lot of supposition and assumption but no actual observed evidence that it did occur. None.

 

[Speedwell]

It also has not been demonstrated that it did happen. There is no evidence shown that we all evolved from a common ancestor. There is a lot of supposition and assumption but no actual observed evidence that it did occur. None.

. We are not talking about "common ancestry" right now. I don't know why you are so fixated on it; it's just an inference from what we know about the evolutionary process, but it's the process itself we are discussing at present.

 

[Jimmy D]

If you understood the science of mutations, I would not have to explain it to you. You can't produce even one example of a mutation being the mechanism for a change of species.

Let me offer you a quote from a qualified evolutionists:

"Mutations have no final evolutionary effect." Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, as quoted by William Baur, "Review of Evolution of living organisms.

Do you accept Grasse’s authority on the subject?

 

[bhsmte]

Yes and Wiki has an article on the subject. I do not believe the evidence supports a KJV only approach.

"The King James Only movement is advocacy by a loosely associated group of Protestant Christians, that the King James Version of the Bible is superior to other English translations, and that other versions, especially those based on Westcott and Hort's revision of the text of the Greek Testament, are not to be trusted and are based on corrupted manuscripts. Adherents of the movement believe that the KJV is the last and best of a series of translations based on what they consider the most reliable of Greek New Testament manuscripts, the Textus Receptus or Majority Text. They believe that newer translations of the Bible are inferior to the King James, and are not as true to the original text. They disapprove of the versions which use the minority text known as the Alexandrian Text or are based upon it.

They see the King James Version as the greatest English translation ever produced, needing no further enhancements. They believe that modern translators have conspired to corrupt Scripture and lead believers away from the true Christian faith and cite alleged flaws in the modern English translations which originated in Alexandria, Egypt identified with Origen, Westcott-Hort, and Aland, also called the Novum Testamentum Graece or critical text."

And all of this, proves science shows the bible to be 100% accurate, how exactly?????

 

[rjs330]

. We are not talking about "common ancestry" right now.

Yes we are, we are always talking about common ancestry. Because that is what evolution teaches. Evolution does not teach that in the beginning there were thousands or millions of creatures that evolved. No it teaches there was one creature that evolved into everything.

Most of us as I have stated before have no issue with the facts that animals change or adapt over time based upon life's need for survival. But they always remain in the same group. Cats remain cats and dogs remain dogs. The peppered moth remained a moth.

What we are against as you know is one thing evolved into everything.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes we are, we are always talking about common ancestry. Because that is what evolution teaches. Evolution does not teach that in the beginning there were thousands or millions of creatures that evolved. No it teaches there was one creature that evolved into everything.

One or a few, it makes no difference.

Most of us as I have stated before have no issue with the facts that animals change or adapt over time based upon life's need for survival. But they always remain in the same group. Cats remain cats and dogs remain dogs. The peppered moth remained a moth.

What we are against as you know is one thing evolved into everything.

Why? What difference does it make? "Biblical" creationism is already over. No matter that you attempt to discredit common ancestry, creation of "biblical" kinds 6000 years ago is off the table. What do you think you are defending?

 

[doubtingmerle]

it cant solve the ic problem since you still deal with a system that require at least several parts for a minimal funtion. so the self replication trait isnt relevant to the question of ic.

Again how do you know all those parts had to develop specifically for that function? That is not how biology works. Rather, parts develop for one function that can easily be repurposed for another. So various parts can be developed for other functions until a fortunate mutation allows the parts to also work together for a new function. Once you have the crude working of a new beneficial function natural selection kicks in to refine it.

 

[pitabread]

read again: i talked about self replicating car.

And where exactly does one find a self-replicating car? I mean, besides your fevered imagination?

And this still doesn't answer the real question why you can't seem to distinguish between non-living objects and living organisms. Do you genuinely not understand the difference?

 

[doubtingmerle]

But they always remain in the same group. Cats remain cats and dogs remain dogs.

What all is part of the "cat group"? Are a jaguar and leopard both part of the same "cat group"? Are a tiger and lion both in the same "cat group"? Is a house cat and lion in the same "cat group"? Could a house cat and bobcat have the same ancestor? How about a bobcat and lion? Where do you place the dividing line?

The peppered moth remained a moth.

What we are against as you know is one thing evolved into everything.

Wait, what? Do you accept that all moths could have the same ancestor? That is quite a lot of evolution.