proving evolution as just a "theory"

[tas8831]

Unfortunately the context reinforces the quote. I can't post links on my phone, but there are several places in the book where he questions the role of mutations in evolution. But as a neo-Lamarkian that's to be expected.

Grasse's book reads a lot like a creationist book in tone - lots of finger pointing and insults, not so much in support of his position.

 

[xianghua]

Show evidence that it did.

what do you mean?

 

[xianghua]

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.

prove it. again: i can say the same for a car. a car (with wheels and engine) can evolve without a problem from a self replicating molecule.

 

[Aman777]

Sure. I used the Godless Internet to tell you that, as you did btw, we find that Godless Science works best without faith, this is just a fact. We then get great benefits from Godless Science, like Godless Medicines that save lives, Godless Technology that improves our health and well-being, I have a Godless Car, Godless heated home, I eat Godless food derived of Godless Agriculture, so on.

Your point?

I believe that one should have respect for Godless Science as well as God's Truth EXCEPT when it is in direct opposition to God's Holy Word. The best example is the false ToE since it's the biggest lie in the history of mankind and yet some bumpkins preach its holiness. They should be ashamed for force teaching this lie in the Public Schools, as fact. In the end, they will be.

 

[Aman777]

Ah, so the Bible is wrong about the date of the flood? One common calculation shows it at 2349 BC according to the Bible. Depending on which verses you use you get a different date (after all the Bible does contradict) but I know of no calculation in the Bible that puts it anywhere close to 9000 BC. If you have any evidence the Bible thought it was significantly before 2500 BC, please document your claim.

See https://assets.answersingenesis.org/doc/articles/2005/TimelineOfTheBible.pdf .

The dating is false since it's the dating of men who lived thousands of years before Science. God hid His Truth until the "increased knowledge" Dan 12:4 of the last days reveals it to all flesh. Act 2:17 I seek to find the Truth which agrees in every way with Scripture, Science and History and I call this God's Truth.

God's Truth agrees with the recorded History of the first Human farming on this Planet. Map: Fertile Cresent, 9000 to 4500 BCE According to History, the first Human farming happened just 11k years ago in Mesopotamia, just SW of Lake Van, Turkey, the 75 mile wide Lake in the mountains of Ararat where the 450 ft long Ark arrived.

 

[Aman777]

Do you seriously expect us to believe Mt Everest grew 29,006 ft in the last 11,000 years? I don't think so.

Of course not. Mt Everest is on the present Earth, not Adam's flat Earth which was only 22.5 feet in elevation. Adam's flat Earth dissolved in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago as his firmament sank releasing the 450 ft Ark into the Lake.

 

[rjs330]

Of course not. Mt Everest is on the present Earth, not Adam's flat Earth which was only 22.5 feet in elevation. Adam's flat Earth dissolved in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago as his firmament sank releasing the 450 ft Ark into the Lake.

Is it possible that Everest actually existed below the oceans of the time and was upthrust during the time of the flood to it's current height? Then appeared when the waters receeded? I think it's possible and answers the questions of how the sea creatures got there.

 

[rjs330]

Of course not. Mt Everest is on the present Earth, not Adam's flat Earth which was only 22.5 feet in elevation. Adam's flat Earth dissolved in Lake Van, Turkey 11,000 years ago as his firmament sank releasing the 450 ft Ark into the Lake.

Is it possible that Everest actually existed below the oceans of the time and was upthrust during the time of the flood to it's current height? Then appeared when the waters receeded? I think it's possible and answers the questions of how the sea creatures got there.

 

[Aman777]

Okay so I am with you up to this point. I would point out that we may have some attributes of God's intelligence...we by no means posses God's intelligence. For the foolishness of God is greater than all of man's wisdom. (1 Corinthians 1:25)

Amen, but only God and Humans (descendants of Adam) have the one ability which is like God's. NO creature which descended from Water (Their kinds) have the unique superior intelligence which Adam was made with. Remember that Adam was made to live forever by Lord God/Jesus. (His kinds)

Okay now you lost me. The Bible doesn't mention any "prehistoric" people nor is there any real evidence to suggest such. History of humanity started with Adam and there were no sub-humans prior. The strata in which bones of humans are found can easily be shown to have been laid down within one global catastrophe rather than "millions" of years of time.

You throw out a lot of other misinformation but we can address that later. Lets get past this point first please.

Sure. On the 5th Day/Age of Creation God the Trinity (Their kind) created and brought forth from WATER "every living creature that moveth". Gen 1:21 The sons of God (prehistoric mankind) moved and we have their bones to prove it for Millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived. Mix the kinds made by Jesus/Lord God or His kinds (Humans) with the sons of God (prehistoric people) and Adam's superior intelligence is INHERITED by the offspring...according to Genesis 6:4. In this manner our Planet has now produced some 7 Billion Humans (descendants of Adam) in the last 11k years since the Ark arrived. Amen?

 

[Jimmy D]

Is it possible that Everest actually existed below the oceans of the time and was upthrust during the time of the flood to it's current height? Then appeared when the waters receeded? I think it's possible and answers the questions of how the sea creatures got there.

What?!?! And you've got the nerve to demand evidence for evolution?!?!?

You really think that that's possible? You realize it's almost 9 km tall right?

That is absolutely mental! Brilliant stuff!

 

[Aman777]

Is it possible that Everest actually existed below the oceans of the time and was upthrust during the time of the flood to it's current height? Then appeared when the waters receeded? I think it's possible and answers the questions of how the sea creatures got there.

The remains of sea creatures were uplifted by plate tectonics Millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived. There is but 1 answer and that is that Adam's world is NOT the present world.

1. God tells Noah, the He is going to destroy the violent men "with the Earth". Gen 6:13
2. God promises Noah that never again will He destroy the Earth in a flood. Gen 9:11
3. Isa 24:19 shows that the first Earth was "clean dissolved" in the flood.
4. 2Pe 2:5 shows that God "spared not the old world" (Grk-Kosmos)
5. 2Pe 3:6 shows that the world (Kosmos) that THEN WAS perished (Grk-destroyed totally, utterly).

Amen?

 

[rjs330]

What?!?! And you've got the nerve to demand evidence for evolution?!?!?

You really think that that's possible? You realize it's almost 9 km tall right?

That is absolutely mental! Brilliant stuff!

You are assuming that it was the same height at the time. I admit I am purely speculating here. Something evolutionists are hard pressed to admit. In fact they refuse.

The mountain is 9 km tall now. But it may have been under the waters and upthrust during the flood. It may have been only 1-2 km high under the water and then upthrust to 9 during the upheaval. Like I said, just speculation.

 

[rjs330]

I'm still waiting to find out what these discoveries from the last fifty years that refute evolution are.

If you make a statement like this you are expected to provide examples to back it up otherwise you are just trolling.

Please be specific.



How does it show that we are not related to "apes", please be specific.

I find it interesting that you still haven't answered this questions concerning evidence. You just respond with comments and questions. Still no evidence.

 

[tas8831]

prove it. again: i can say the same for a car. a car (with wheels and engine) can evolve without a problem from a self replicating molecule.

Show us a car evolving from a self-replicating molecule.

Scratch that. You can't.

 

[tas8831]

It is foolish to accept what people say without some evidence to support it.

I agree.

That is why I am now an atheist. Creationists never present evidence for their beliefs. They just attack evolution in their desperation.

I guarantee you Collins did not provide and scientific evidence for common ancestry being a fact.

I do have to wonder how many times this sort of thing needs to be copy-pasted:

"As our closest relatives, they (chimpanzees) tell us special things about what it means to be a primate and, ultimately, what it means to be a human at the DNA level."

And especially:


"This evidence [DNA similarities] alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of "silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable—not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves."​

Not the basics. It is still impossible for an offspring to receive a characteristic not in the gene pool of its parents.

Characteristics are not in gene pools. Alleles are. and alleles are variants of genes produced via mutation.

Learn some biology.

Most of the discoveries made by science in the last 50 years refute evolution.

Utter nonsense.

However DNA separates species, not links them...

It will also show we are not related to apes.

It shows the opposite.

 

[Aman777]

How does it show that we are not related to "apes", please be specific.

God tells us that Humans/Adam were made the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4-7
He also tells us that "every living creature that moveth" was made the 5th Day. Gen 1:21

Now, its your time to explain How Humans could have evolved from creatures made long AFTER Humans were made. I predict you will fail or call God a Liar.

 

[Aman777]

That is why I am now an atheist. Creationists never present evidence for their beliefs. They just attack evolution in their desperation.

False, since I support my views with the agreement of Scripture, Science and History. The ToE is incomplete since it cannot tell us WHERE or WHEN the first Human appeared. Evolution is the biggest Lie ever told.

 

[ruthiesea]

False, since it is based on blind faith in an incomplete, easily refuted, Godless Theory. By force teaching these lies to our children, we are teaching them that they are NOT God's children but instead are the same as any other animal. The ToE begins by claiming it doesn't know where the first man came from. Just believe us, they say while they cannot provide ANY support for their "beliefs". Can you?

It cannot be godless a sit says nothing about it. It does not say that children are not G-d's children. In fact, it agrees with the teachings of my religion. There are many people who believe in G-d and can accept that ToE is a valid scientific theory that has not been invalidated.

No, ToE does not know the first man came from. That's why. unlike religious beliefs, scientific research continues. Maimonides wrote, "Teach thy tongue to say 'I don't know' and you shall progress."

You might want to look up the tens of thousands of scientific studies that support ToE, starting with Origin of Species.

By the way, whose religious beliefs would you have taught in lieu of evolution? Would it be Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.?

 

[BradB]

Brad: Do you understand the definition of "infinite?" If it is something or someone that is infinite then it/He requires no beginning.

Tas: And that is just ad hoc, special pleading. You merely assert that the 'next step up' is infinite. I assert otherwise.

How? How is that special pleading Tas? I see it as a simple line of logic. If something finite cannot come from nothing and a finite something (the universe) exists it must logically come from something else which ultimately has to lead back to something that exists infinitely in nature. This is because we have never observed something come from nothing and science has to be based in what we have observed not what we "imagine" could have happened. If the characteristics of specificity have only been observed coming from intelligence then when we observe that the universe and life is comprised of specificity the only logical conclusion is that the source of the universe possesses intelligence. If A = infinite source and B = intelligent source then all that is left is a simple arithmetic problem. A + B must = C an infinite intelligent creator. I would love for you to show me where my logic breaks down because I can't see it. And please don't try and tell me to go read a book. Firstly its not my job to support your argument. Secondly I went that route with another poster once and his book he suggested actually supported my argument not his.

The first definition I saw was "the quality of belonging or relating uniquely to a particular subject."

Lol. FYI we are supposed to be communicating here, which is where a person listens to someone else and then responds to what they said. So when I give you the definition of what a word means to me you don't get to go find your own different definition and try change what I mean. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Specificity as I am using it here means anything in which an observed can see was formed for an intended use or purpose.

I agree that car keys have an intelligent source - humans. Are you saying that the Ultimate Designer was a human?

Here we go... the old human intelligence slapstick. That's why I gave you examples of marine biologists and SETI astronomers looking for "non" human intelligence using specificity.

 

[Speedwell]

How? How is that special pleading Tas? I see it as a simple line of logic. If something finite cannot come from nothing and a finite something (the universe) exists it must logically come from something else which ultimately has to lead back to something that exists infinitely in nature. This is because we have never observed something come from nothing and science has to be based in what we have observed not what we "imagine" could have happened. If the characteristics of specificity have only been observed coming from intelligence then when we observe that the universe and life is comprised of specificity the only logical conclusion is that the source of the universe possesses intelligence. If A = infinite source and B = intelligent source then all that is left is a simple arithmetic problem. A + B must = C an infinite intelligent creator. I would love for you to show me where my logic breaks down because I can't see it. And please don't try and tell me to go read a book. Firstly its not my job to support your argument. Secondly I went that route with another poster once and his book he suggested actually supported my argument not his.



Lol. FYI we are supposed to be communicating here, which is where a person listens to someone else and then responds to what they said. So when I give you the definition of what a word means to me you don't get to go find your own different definition and try change what I mean. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Specificity as I am using it here means anything in which an observed can see was formed for an intended use or purpose.



Here we go... the old human intelligence slapstick. That's why I gave you examples of marine biologists and SETI astronomers looking for "non" human intelligence using specificity.

What SETI astronomers are looking for are narrow-band microwave signals of a kind not thought to be produced by natural causes.