We are all looking at the same evidence - really?

[justlookinla]

I'm sorry if I missed it, but I don't understand where you believe these variations came from in the first place. If these Asians always remain Asians where did the first ones come from?

A flatworm?

 

[ecco]

Notice, I said I believe in evolution but I don't believe in evolution. Now, as far as "evolution as defined by science", why not actually define it within parameters? "Evolution as defined by science" is vague.

I've posted this before...

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.


​

...as opposed to your mistaken belief of micro evolution but not macro evolution.

You seem to be placing your faith in the unseen realm of Darwinist evolution.

I believe that man has learned a lot in the past 4000 years. As do all christians who do not take genesis literally as you do.

 

[justlookinla]

I've posted this before...

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

Common descent describes how, in evolutionary biology, a group of organisms share a most recent common ancestor. There is evidence of common descent that all life on Earth is descended from the last universal ancestor.


​

...as opposed to your mistaken belief of micro evolution but not macro evolution.

You've posted an incomplete definition. You haven't, purposely or not, posted the alleged driving force which 'created' all life from an alleged single life form of long ago as part of the definition. Darwinist evolution is about more than common ancestry.

I believe that man has learned a lot in the past 4000 years. As do all christians who do not take genesis literally as you do.

I agree, man has learned a lot in the past 4000 years.

 

[Skaloop]

You've posted an incomplete definition. You haven't, purposely or not, posted the alleged driving force which 'created' all life from an alleged single life form of long ago as part of the definition. Darwinist evolution is about more than common ancestry.

The origin of life is not part of the Theory of Evolution. It's related in that evolution began once life originated, but it is not necessary for the ToE to explain the origin of life any more than the Theory of Gravity, which states that two objects of mass attract each other, needs to explain where object of mass came from. Nobody says "I believe in gravity, but I don't believe in gravity because it doesn't address the alleged driving force which "created" all mass."

 

[justlookinla]

The origin of life is not part of the Theory of Evolution.

Right. That's why I haven't posted anything about the origin of life. There is the development of life though, per the Darwinist evolutionary view.

It's related in that evolution began once life originated, but it is not necessary for the ToE to explain the origin of life any more than the Theory of Gravity, which states that two objects of mass attract each other, needs to explain where object of mass came from. Nobody says "I believe in gravity, but I don't believe in gravity because it doesn't address the alleged driving force which "created" all mass."

Again, this isn't about the origin of life, its about the claims of the 'how' in the development of life per Darwinist evolution.

 

[Jimmy D]

A flatworm?

No need for that, it was a genuine question.

 

[Skaloop]

Right. That's why I haven't posted anything about the origin of life. There is the development of life though, per the Darwinist evolutionary view.



Again, this isn't about the origin of life, its about the claims of the 'how' in the development of life per Darwinist evolution.

The development of life is exactly what evolution addresses.

 

[justlookinla]

No need for that, it was a genuine question.

It's a genuine answer. That's one of the guesses in the Darwinist evolutionary view.....

"A team of scientists from Spain and the UK has determined that a certain curiously primitive group of flatworms are the oldest living ancestors to all "bilateral" animals-that is, those with a right and left side. These worms were previously thought to belong to a much younger group of organisms, and their newfound identity also implies that bilateral organisms began making their debut on Earth earlier than previously thought."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/03/990322062150.htm​

 

[justlookinla]

The development of life is exactly what evolution addresses.

Allegedly addresses. There are the guesses and suppositions of Darwinist evolution.

 

[whois]

I do believe in evolution. I just don't believe in evolution.

i know the feeling.

it seems to boil down to common sense and instincts, and to a lesser degree evidence.
the only real evidence i've seen in regards to evolution is the ability to trace genes through deep time.
this however blows the doors off of such things as base insertions and HGT.
these types of mutations would completely erase any history to genes.

 

[whois]

Nice try at a stretch.

It is more correct to...

• Equate jury with people
• Equate scientists with lawyers and expert witnesses

If you expect jurors to understand the concepts put forward by lawyers and expert witnesses then you should expect people to understand the concepts put forward by scientists.

In neither case...if you don't like the evidence, you disregard it.

you missed the point.
let's say you have an astronomer on trial for something he did in his line of work.
what verdict are you likely to believe:
a verdict handed down by a jury of unbiased astronomers or a verdict handed down by a jury of unbiased laymen?
this is what is meant by a jury of ones peers.

 

[justlookinla]

i know the feeling.

it seems to boil down to common sense and instincts, and to a lesser degree evidence.
the only real evidence i've seen in regards to evolution is the ability to trace genes through deep time.
this however blows the doors off of such things as base insertions and HGT.
these types of mutations would completely erase any history to genes.

I think acknowledgement of the various views of evolution would be helpful in the discussions on the forum. Instead, there are those who refuse to admit those differences and will attempt to force discussion into one view...theirs.

 

[whois]

I think acknowledgement of the various views of evolution would be helpful in the discussions on the forum. Instead, there are those who refuse to admit those differences and will attempt to force discussion into one view...theirs.

the problem seems to be, instead of following the evidence, they are following what they think evolution should be.
recent evidence points to a non gradualistic, non adaptive paradigm, but yet that is what most of these people profess.

it seems to me that it would be a simple matter to prove a bacteria can indeed become a man, given our current knowledge.

 

[Skaloop]

Allegedly addresses. There are the guesses and suppositions of Darwinist evolution.

No, not allegedly. I definitely addresses the development of life. You and others might consider it mere guesses and suppositions, but it still addresses the development of life. That is indisputable.

 

[justlookinla]

the problem seems to be, instead of following the evidence, they are following what they think evolution should be.
recent evidence points to a non gradualistic, non adaptive paradigm, but yet that is what most of these people profess.

it seems to me that it would be a simple matter to prove a bacteria can indeed become a man, given our current knowledge.

But, they can't. And won't admit it.

 

[justlookinla]

No, not allegedly. I definitely addresses the development of life. You and others might consider it mere guesses and suppositions, but it still addresses the development of life. That is indisputable.

Where does it address the development of life?

 

[Skaloop]

Where does it address the development of life?

The entire thing describes the process by which life develops and changes over time.

Seriously, it's right in the definition of "develop":

[dih-vel-uh p]
verb (used with object)
1. to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.
2. to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.
3. to elaborate or expand in detail: to develop a theory.
4. to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve.
5. Drafting. to transfer the details of (a more or less two-dimensional design, pattern, or the like) from one surface, especially one that isprismatic or cylindrical, onto another, usually planar, in such a way that the distances between points remain the same.
6. Biology:
(a) to cause to go through the process of natural evolution from a previous and lower stage.
(b) to cause to progress from an embryonic to an adult form.
7.Mathematics: to express in an extended form, as in a series.

 

[justlookinla]

The entire thing describes the process by which life develops and changes over time.

Seriously, it's right in the definition of "develop":

[dih-vel-uh p]
verb (used with object)
1. to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.
2. to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.
3. to elaborate or expand in detail: to develop a theory.
4. to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve.
5. Drafting. to transfer the details of (a more or less two-dimensional design, pattern, or the like) from one surface, especially one that isprismatic or cylindrical, onto another, usually planar, in such a way that the distances between points remain the same.
6. Biology:
(a) to cause to go through the process of natural evolution from a previous and lower stage.
(b) to cause to progress from an embryonic to an adult form.
7.Mathematics: to express in an extended form, as in a series.

Well, that's all good and fine but there's nothing there other than general claims. What's missing is essential......the underlying evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[whois]

The entire thing describes the process by which life develops and changes over time.

the RNA world hypothesis seems to describe how life develops too.
however, it isn't working as planned.
at least one microbiologist has outright called this area of research a failure.
so, what does this microbiologist propose?
an infinite number of universes, a multi-verse scenario where it is inevitable life arises.
honestly, does this sound any more implausible than a god, or "things become alive"?

 

[ecco]

You've posted an incomplete definition. You haven't, purposely or not, posted the alleged driving force which 'created' all life from an alleged single life form of long ago as part of the definition.

If you wanted to discuss abiogenesis you should have been abiogenesis instead of evolution. I know you know the difference.

We haven't figured out the process of abiogenesis yet. That does not negate, as you so succintly stated it: Evolution is about common ancestry for which there is overwhelming evidence that is accepted around the world by even many christians. Those christians who do not believe in evolution/common descent believe, as you do, in a literal reading of genesis.


Why do you not admit that you believe in a literal reading of genesis?