The Fossil Record Proves Speciation, Not Evolution of Lifeforms Observed

[VirOptimus]

No I don't, you are trying hard to fit me into some box for your own purposes. Its as though if you can show a person is a particular type then you prove yourself. Thats all fallacy. You have to go back 5 years to find one post that mentions creation which is a completely different thing to a creationist that holds a specific view of the creation events and a whole lot of other stuff like the flood, 6 day creation with particular events that go with each, literal Eve created from Adams rib etc etc. Not that I am going to ridecule anyone who has that view and say they do not have the right to believe that.

If anything that posts shows a person 5 years ago questioning things. What you fail to mention is that I also mention evolution as possible and question how life can change. In mentioning creation I am not speaking about creationism but saying I believe that in some way life is created but am not sure how. Whether that is with own kinds or as a single universal organism or a combination of both I do not know. All I know is that life cannot come from non lifeand simplicity cannot create complexity. No info cannot create info and simple info cannot create more complex info. That complexity was around very early, perhaps in the beginning when life first appeared on earth. The evidence seems to support a apssing on of existing genetic info which varied into new forms from developmental programs rather than a random and blind process that has no evidence.

Tl, dr.

You are a creationist and only argue the science because of your religious beliefs. I dont understand why you feel the need to lie about that. Its kinda sad actually.

 

[stevevw]

The papers dont support your arguments. Learn the science.

What do they support then. I asked you what was meant by those statemnets and you still have not explained them. If you think they mean something else then what is that. To me they speak pretty plain English. They are not alluding to some complex idea. Just simply saying that the genetic networks central to building complex organisms are not done by adpative evolution but rather non-adaptive processes. That there are other ways for life to change besides natural selection and adpatations.

 

[stevevw]

Tl, dr.

You are a creationist and only argue the science because of your religious beliefs. I dont understand why you feel the need to lie about that. Its kinda sad actually.

If I was a creationsist then why would I support all the ideas about things like there was no global flood, there was no six daycreation, the earth is billions of years old, evolution happens, etc. Unlesss you are saying that I an making up all that as well as part of this elaborate set of lies. I think this is all to avoid dealing with what I have posted becuase so far all I have seen is attacking the person rather than dealing with the content. Anyone knows that the best form of defence is attacking the person. But then thats just another fallacy which is beginning to show a pattern. If you are using past threads to judge me then what would happen if I came up with a bunch of posts that show I am not a creationsist, what would you say then, that only the ones you find count and my ones are made up lol.

 

[stevevw]

Can you be more specific here? Does God cause the changes to occur? If so, how? If not, did he just set the system up and then leave it alone?

To be honest I don't really know. I can only comment on what I believe is the evidence that shows life is more the result of a Creator than something that was created from nothing or from something that was not there in the first place. To rely on Neo Darwinism you have to use a lot of assumption and come up with explainations that almost call for as much faith as what people say creationsist use. I think what I have posted shows that there are other ways that are natural processes whether within living things, between living things, between living things and the enviroment that equip life with all the needed mechanisms to change and adapt to their enviroments. This does not require assumptions or extra ordinary explanations that are hard to support as does Darwinism.

 

[VirOptimus]

If I was a creationsist then why would I support all the ideas about things like there was no global flood, there was no six daycreation, the earth is billions of years old, evolution happens, etc. Unlesss you are saying that I an making up all that as well as part of this elaborate set of lies. I think this is all to avoid dealing with what I have posted becuase so far all I have seen is attacking the person rather than dealing with the content. Anyone knows that the best form of defence is attacking the person. But then thats just another fallacy which is beginning to show a pattern. If you are using past threads to judge me then what would happen if I came up with a bunch of posts that show I am not a creationsist, what would you say then, that only the ones you find count and my ones are made up lol.

Thats YEC, I never said you where that.

 

[VirOptimus]

To be honest I don't really know. I can only comment on what I believe is the evidence that shows life is more the result of a Creator than something that was created from nothing or from something that was not there in the first place. To rely on Neo Darwinism you have to use a lot of assumption and come up with explainations that almost call for as much faith as what people say creationsist use. I think what I have posted shows that there are other ways that are natural processes whether within living things, between living things, between living things and the enviroment that equip life with all the needed mechanisms to change and adapt to their enviroments. This does not require assumptions or extra ordinary explanations that are hard to support as does Darwinism.

No you havent. And the science does not support your ideas. All scientists agree that the overwhelmingly strongest force in evolution is natural selection. The papers you quote says that there are other minor processes also and there are some debate about how much theese other processes contribute but all agree that they are very minor.

 

[Ophiolite]

No you havent. And the science does not support your ideas. All scientists shree that the overwhelmkngly strongest force in evolution is natursl selection. The papers you quote says that there are other minor processes also and there are some debate about how much theese other processes contribute but all agree that they are very minor.

Even if these minor processes were more important than currently is thought to be the case, what would remain is that evolution proceeds via a suite of natural mechanisms to generate the diversity of life on this planet. This diversity is expressed across orders of magnitude of size, contrasting cellular architecture, endosymbiosis, complex multi-cellular organisms with varied metabolisms, anatomies and behaviours; it's mind blowing and majestic. Surely any religious person should feel a sense of awe that their God achieved this, not by simplistic, unitary acts of creation, but via subtle, powerful principles, acting over billions of years. While a droll atheist can reflect "this worked out rather nicely in our favour".

 

[Kylie]

To be honest I don't really know. I can only comment on what I believe is the evidence that shows life is more the result of a Creator than something that was created from nothing or from something that was not there in the first place. To rely on Neo Darwinism you have to use a lot of assumption and come up with explainations that almost call for as much faith as what people say creationsist use. I think what I have posted shows that there are other ways that are natural processes whether within living things, between living things, between living things and the enviroment that equip life with all the needed mechanisms to change and adapt to their enviroments. This does not require assumptions or extra ordinary explanations that are hard to support as does Darwinism.

So it's just your opinion, am I right?

 

[stevevw]

Even if these minor processes were more important than currently is thought to be the case, what would remain is that evolution proceeds via a suite of natural mechanisms to generate the diversity of life on this planet. This diversity is expressed across orders of magnitude of size, contrasting cellular architecture, endosymbiosis, complex multi-cellular organisms with varied metabolisms, anatomies and behaviours; it's mind blowing and majestic. Surely any religious person should feel a sense of awe that their God achieved this, not by simplistic, unitary acts of creation, but via subtle, powerful principles, acting over billions of years. While a droll atheist can reflect "this worked out rather nicely in our favour".

 

[stevevw]

So it's just your opinion, am I right?

No, if you were to read the links I posted you will see that the science backs this.

 

[stevevw]

No you havent. And the science does not support your ideas. All scientists agree that the overwhelmingly strongest force in evolution is natural selection. The papers you quote says that there are other minor processes also and there are some debate about how much theese other processes contribute but all agree that they are very minor.

Then once again I need you to explain what this paper is talking about which at this point you keep rejecting but have never explained why. Take note that the author is saying that natural selection is not even necessary or sufficient let alone plays a major or even minor role in this process.Also that it is talking about the emergence of complex organisms and the central genetic and cellular features that make them and not some minor role.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[VirOptimus]

Then once again I need you to explain what this paper is talking about which at this point you keep rejecting but have never explained why. Take note that the author is saying that natural selection is not even necessary or sufficient let alone plays a major or even minor role in this process.Also that it is talking about the emergence of complex organisms and the central genetic and cellular features that make them and not some minor role.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
The goal here is to dispel a number of myths regarding the evolution of organismal complexity (Table 1). Given that life originated from inorganic matter, it is clear that there has been an increase in phenotypic complexity over the past 3.5 billion years, although long-term stasis has been the predominant pattern in most lineages. What is in question is whether natural selection is a necessary or sufficient force to explain the emergence of the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

It says just what I wrote. Its also over 10 years old. Write to the author and ask him sbout your interpretation if you dont believe me.

 

[VirOptimus]

No, if you were to read the links I posted you will see that the science backs this.

Science backs that god has a part in evolution?

 

[Kylie]

No, if you were to read the links I posted you will see that the science backs this.

First, It sure seems like your opinion. I asked you:

Can you be more specific here? Does God cause the changes to occur? If so, how? If not, did he just set the system up and then leave it alone?
​

Your response to this was, "To be honest I don't really know." That was literally the first thing you said in response to my question. So if you don't know how something works, you can't really expect me to believe you when you say the science backs up your position. You've just admitted that you aren't sure of your position!

Also, in the post of yours that I originally quoted in which you made the claim that God uses evolution, you posted only one link. That link was this one: Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

Can you please show me which part of that link supports the idea that evolution is a tool God uses?

 

[DogmaHunter]

To rely on Neo Darwinism you have to use a lot of assumption and come up with explainations that almost call for as much faith as what people say creationsist use.

There is nothing in evolutionary biology (or natural sciences in general) that requires "faith".
YOU are the one who insists on including some undetectable, unsupportable, unobservable, untestable entity that "works in mysterious ways" and somehow manipulates living things in completely undetectable fashion, without any measurable manifestation whatsoever.

So please…

I think what I have posted shows that there are other ways that are natural processes whether within living things, between living things, between living things and the enviroment that equip life with all the needed mechanisms to change and adapt to their enviroments. This does not require assumptions or extra ordinary explanations that are hard to support as does Darwinism.

Mainstream biology is evidence based.

Your undetectable, unsupportable, unobservable, untestable entity that works in mysterious ways with no detectable manifestation, is not. That entity, as well as everything you claim it does / is responsible for, is faith-based

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, if you were to read the links I posted you will see that the science backs this.

There is no science that backs anything that has no detectable manifestation, nore is there any science that backs some unsupportable, undemonstrable, unobservable and untestable entity.

 

[stevevw]

It says just what I wrote. Its also over 10 years old. Write to the author and ask him sbout your interpretation if you dont believe me.

You say that I do not understand the meaning of the paper yet you try to discredit the paper by saying they it too out of date and therefore what it is saying is now wrong through new discoveries. This is actually acknowledging that what I have said about the paper is correct. Otherwise you would not try to discredit the paper and actually use it to show that I am wrong.

 

[stevevw]

There is no science that backs anything that has no detectable manifestation, nore is there any science that backs some unsupportable, undemonstrable, unobservable and untestable entity.

That has nothing to do with what I am saying. I am saying that there are mechanisms for how life changes besides Neo-Darwinism that can be shown through science. They do not operate with some non-detectable process or require supernatural forces. They point to life having the ability to change/vary through internal and external processes that have been designed to help life adapt from the beginning rather than a blind and random process that takes just as much if not more faith than what some say about supernatural creation. All life shares a similar development programs that have been around from the beginning and all variation has stemmed off that.

 

[VirOptimus]

You say that I do not understand the meaning of the paper yet you try to discredit the paper by saying they it too out of date and therefore what it is saying is now wrong through new discoveries. This is actually acknowledging that what I have said about the paper is correct. Otherwise you would not try to discredit the paper and actually use it to show that I am wrong.

No try again.

Write to the author, I guarantee you that he thinks your interpretation is dead wrong, because it is.