The Demise of Evolution

[roman2819]

No, the theory is not changing in that sense. Your understanding of the theory is incorrect. Demonstrating that a literal interpretation of Genesis is wrong is not saying that there is no God. And of course a literal interpretation of Genesis was shown to.ge incorrect before Darwin formed his theory.

I see people in this discussion defending i evolution by saying it does not mean no god or no creator. However, to most people in different parts of the world, evolution is perceived as no creator. Whether you said this is wrong interpretation or not, however, proponents of Evolution has allowed this perception to continue. Evolution postulates that monkey evolved into humans and keep trying to prove it for many years but without success due to lack of evidence. Are they going to say they have been misunderstood or do they still believe that humans come from monkey? Or are they cleverly saying they haven't prove it, so they are not saying it but they believe it?

If they believe humans come from monkey, then it is unbiblical. Scriptures say humans are created by God, not evolved from monkey. So don't blame the majority of people in the world for "misinterpreting" evolution.

 

[roman2819]

And by the way, you still are a "monkey" . There is no change of kind in evolution. That is a creationist strawman.

Whether you said evolution does not mean no god or no creator, however, proponents of Evolution has allowed this perception to continue. Evolution postulates that monkey evolved into humans and keep trying to prove it for many years but without success due to lack of evidence. Are they going to say they have been misunderstood or do they still believe that humans come from monkey?

Or are they cleverly saying they haven't prove the monkey-human link, so they are not confirming it but they believe it?

If they believe humans come from monkey, then it is unbiblical. Scriptures say humans are created by God, not evolved from monkey. So don't blame the majority of people in the world for "misinterpreting" evolution.

 

[Job 33:6]

"Are there proof of cellular changes which show that one species evolved into another specie, for example: such as monkey evolved into human? Or an amphibian evolved into reptiles?"

These are not species to species changes of course. What you're asking for is something more akin to a family to family change.

taxonomy - Google Search

@roman2819

 

[Lazarus Long]

Evolution postulates that monkey evolved into humans

No it doesn't. Having never read anything about evolution why do you then insist on displaying your ignorance of the subject? Read about what evolution actually says and come back. All creationist websites propagate lies

 

[SLP]

Evolution postulates that monkey evolved into humans and keep trying to prove it for many years but without success due to lack of evidence.

Ok, let's say that is true.

It isn't, but let's just say it is.

What is the evidence for your preferred explanation? And no, bible verses are not evidence. And no, attacking evolution is not evidence for creation.

 

[Speedwell]

Changes can happen to living things within the same specie, but one specie(s) do not evolve into another, or kind do not change into another, as evolution claims. You may read my new post #198 as I explain further.

At least you should try to learn that the singular form of "species" is the same as the plural. "Specie" without the "s" means monetary coinage.

 

[Speedwell]

In answer to your words " I don't see why you should think that the reality of biological 'evolution means NO CREATOR' try reading my new post #198

Your post #198 does not appear to address the issue. But you're wasting your time. Trying to argue that the theory of evolution denies the existence of God is a shopworn lie, well past its sell-by date. It doesn't fool anybody any more.

 

[Speedwell]

Changes can happen to living things within the same specie, but one specie(s) do not evolve into another, or kind do not change into another, as evolution claims. You may read my new post #198 as I explain further.

Actually, speciation has been observed. But I think you're getting confused. Are you trying to argue that the theory of evolution is false? Or that it denies the existence of God? Or that it is being used to deny the existence of God even though it doesn't actually do so?

 

[pitabread]

Are there proof of cellular changes which show that one species evolved into another specie, or one kind evolved into another? For example: such as monkey evolved into human? Or an amphibian evolved into reptiles?

I am not saying that changes cannot happen within the same species, they do happen and has happened, but the specie don't evolve into another specie, or one kind dont evolved inro another kind: eg: a monkey don't evolved into a human.

There are a few things to unpack here:

1) New species evolving has been directly observed. You can google "speciation" for more.

2) There is ample evidence to support the common ancestry of species on Earth.

For the latter point, I'd recommend reading what creationist Todd Wood has to say. He's a creationist and biologist who rejects evolution, but he is also quite honest about the theory of evolution as a scientific theory. This is what he says about it:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.​

The truth about evolution

I'd recommend checking out his blog as he has a lot more to say on the subject. His main point though is that creationists don't do themselves any favor by not recognizing the reality of evolution as a scientific theory, including the fact that it is well supported by scientific evidence.

If you want to learn more about how and why the theory of evolution is supported by evidence, I recommend looking at some educational material on the subject. I started a thread awhile back with links to education resources including full, free university-level courses on biology and evolution: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

The best way to understand the evidence for evolution is to start by learning about biology and the theory of evolution.

 

[JackRT]

But the book of Job does mention leviathans, and today, we found their fossils.

We don't know with any certainty just what creature the Bible refers to as "leviathan" so to say we have found their fossils is pure speculation.

 

[driewerf]

To people who replied to my post past 2 days

Is there any Evolution articles you have read that talk about changes at cellular level? Before species evolved to the next level, there has to be changes at cellular level, isn't? Before a monkey transformed into human (as evolution claim), the monkey's cells had to evolve at cellular level.

So far, there are no evolutionists, no biologists, no microbiologists and no doctors have found or explained such changes. Has anyone read about it? Or can anyone even claim to know anything about changes at cellular level?

Google

• mutation
• transposon
• gene duplication
• genetic drift
• ERV
• human chromosome 2
• polyploidy
• exon and intron

and that's just for starters.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Are there proof of cellular changes which show that one species evolved into another specie, or one kind evolved into another? For example: such as monkey evolved into human? Or an amphibian evolved into reptiles?

I am not saying that changes cannot happen within the same species, they do happen and has happened, but the specie don't evolve into another specie, or one kind dont evolved inro another kind: eg: a monkey don't evolved into a human.

Living things within the same specie do change, but the changes are limited to size, appearances or a little more changes. For example, in 2013, a report showed that a giant BEE about 2 feet into body size was found, which is hundreds of times larger than today's wasps or bumblebees. And there are other reports that LARGE mammals were found, definitely larger than their descendants today. Fossils and credible physical evidences demonstrate that changes happen -- but within the SAME specie(s).

I do believe that dinosaurs existed. In all probability, they may not be like those shown in the movies (not like gozilla). But large sized dinosaurs perhaps 20 or 30 feet tall were probably roaming the earth before. God created them, and later, He allowed them to be extincted, whether by the meteor from out space (as the theory goes) , or natural deaths -- we don't know the reasons. But the book of Job does mention leviathans, and today, we found their fossils.

But so far, there is no evidence that specie(s) or kind(s) evolved into another. This is what evolution is associated with. Having said that, I wonder if people in this discussion is going to deny that evolution say that. If so, try to read post #201.

A lot of bluster, and yet nothing to show any claim that the theory of evolution is wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

A lot of bluster, and yet nothing to show any claim that the theory of evolution is wrong.

Even so, the question being raised is not whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong, but whether it denies the existence of God.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Even so, the question being raised is not whether the theory of evolution is right or wrong, but whether it denies the existence of God.

You know how these people think: Evolution is proven wrong - God is real. Evolution is proven right - God does not exist.
It's a horribly black and white world view.

 

[Speedwell]

You know how these people think: Evolution is proven wrong - God is real. Evolution is proven right - God does not exist.
It's a horribly black and white world view.

And the underlying question is not about the existence of God at all, but about the Bible.

 

[pitabread]

You know how these people think: Evolution is proven wrong - God is real. Evolution is proven right - God does not exist.
It's a horribly black and white world view.

This makes me wonder how sincere fundamentalist beliefs really are. If something like a scientific theory being correct would disprove the existence of God to someone, such beliefs sound terribly fragile.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are there proof of cellular changes which show that one species evolved into another specie, or one kind evolved into another? For example: such as monkey evolved into human? Or an amphibian evolved into reptiles?

I am not saying that changes cannot happen within the same species, they do happen and has happened, but the specie don't evolve into another specie, or one kind dont evolved inro another kind: eg: a monkey don't evolved into a human.

Again, in reply to the question about what you mean by "change at a cellular level" you answer by talking about general E. v. C. stuff.

What do you mean by change at a cellular level?

(The only responsive answers must refer to cells, and not organisms.)

Do you think monkey and human biochemistry (that is chemistry w/in the cell) is different?

Do you think monkeys and humans have different types of cells (muscle cells, neurons, red blood cells, etc.) that are unique to one or the other? That are the same types, but somehow different?

Do you think monkey cells have different organelles? Different enzymes? Different cell membranes?

Do you think they have a different genetic mechanism (DNA-to-RNA translation machinery, different codons)

Are you talking about genetic differences?

What?

 

[Kylie]

Are there proof of cellular changes which show that one species evolved into another specie, or one kind evolved into another?

It's changes in DNA. ALL the changes in evolution are in DNA.

And yes, we can compare the different DNA of different species. In closely related species, the DNA is very similar. The more distantly related the species are, the more differences there are in the DNA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see people in this discussion defending i evolution by saying it does not mean no god or no creator. However, to most people in different parts of the world, evolution is perceived as no creator. Whether you said this is wrong interpretation or not, however, proponents of Evolution has allowed this perception to continue. Evolution postulates that monkey evolved into humans and keep trying to prove it for many years but without success due to lack of evidence. Are they going to say they have been misunderstood or do they still believe that humans come from monkey? Or are they cleverly saying they haven't prove it, so they are not saying it but they believe it?

If they believe humans come from monkey, then it is unbiblical. Scriptures say humans are created by God, not evolved from monkey. So don't blame the majority of people in the world for "misinterpreting" evolution.

All that means is that people have a mistaken belief in how their creator made our world. In fact it is more than a little blasphemous for people to try to tell their God how he made the world.

And there is more than enough evidence to "prove" evolution. Where did you get the idea that there is a lack of evidence from? Your posts indicate that you do not understand the concept of evidence nor the scientific method. There is more evidence for evolution than there is for gravity. Perhaps we should go over the basics. You may be able to understand better if you do.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Whether you said evolution does not mean no god or no creator, however, proponents of Evolution has allowed this perception to continue. Evolution postulates that monkey evolved into humans and keep trying to prove it for many years but without success due to lack of evidence. Are they going to say they have been misunderstood or do they still believe that humans come from monkey?

You are repeating some of your errors from your office prior post. Science does not technically "prove" anything. But if your standards are that same as in a criminal trial where the standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" then yes. Monkey to man evolution has been proven. We need to start at the basics since I am sure that you do not even understand the concept of evidence.

Or are they cleverly saying they haven't prove the monkey-human link, so they are not confirming it but they believe it?

No. That would imply dishonesty. There is no doubt about that evolution, it is beyond mere belief. Again, basics first and we can work up from there.

If they believe humans come from monkey, then it is unbiblical. Scriptures say humans are created by God, not evolved from monkey. So don't blame the majority of people in the world for "misinterpreting" evolution.

So what? The Bible was not meant to be read literally. In fact a literal reading of the Bibles paints God very poorly. It is best to treat Genesis as a series of morality tales.