What Evolution fails to mention.

[dad]

Not really, believing in the Golden Age was a very old archetypal myth

Guess we can't ask science. Maybe we'll just depend on your unbelief?

 

[dad]

Oh, and Dad, potatoes ( and other plants)are more closely related to humans than bacteria are, because we’re eucaryotes. The split between the lineages happened during the precambrian

So you genuinely consider potatoes to be kin. OK. Guess we better not question your religious beliefs, because you invented a word for grouping potatoes in with man! So we have you, carrots, coyotes, and potatoes all in the same 'group'. youcaryotes.

 

[Brightmoon]

All eucaryotes are kin and that includes plants. I had a sister named Violet. Every time I see a violet it reminds me of her and I remember that we’re both kin. Gives treehugger a whole new meaning

 

[Brightmoon]

The eucarya are multicellular animals ,plants, and fungi along with the unicellular organisms called protists . This is something you should have learned in jr high ( middle school) back in the day. yes carrots, potatoes ,coyotes, and humans are cousins

I think it’s amusing and also a little sad that you’re mocking me because of your ignorance

 

[USincognito]

The eucarya are multicellular animals ,plants, and fungi along with the unicellular organisms called protists . This is something you should have learned in jr high ( middle school) back in the day. yes carrots, potatoes ,coyotes, and humans are cousins

I think it’s amusing and also a little sad that you’re mocking me because of your ignorance

There are some unicellular eukaryotes. Actually I guess "some" would be a bit of an understatement, any unicellular non bacteria or archaea would be eukaryotic.

 

[Hypocrltes]

This is basically gonna cause a little bit of controversy. People say things like "God made Evolution" "Evolution doesn't NEED god" "Evolution isn't real." Well, all of those are all kinda wrong except for the first one. God did make all the animals, but not in the way Evolution says. And it's one thing that Darwin states that prevents us from understanding how it works for both science and God. What is the one thing he missed...? It wasn't from ONE kind of cell that it was evolved.

Of course, others may or may not see where i am getting at. Let me explain. Darwin states that our ancestors evolved from one organism and it's children (kinda) changed and evolved.
But, that is the VERY flaw that Darwin got wrong. And to explain this before i say what i mean, let's go to Yellowstone. Over a decade ago, the native wolves were kinda eradicated from the area, and that's where it starts to crumble. The deer over populate, the grass and plantation decreases over time, and everything starts to crumble. It wasn't until the wolves are introduced to Yellowstone again that everything starts to come back into order. Now, back to Evolution.... in order for it all to be explained, there needs to be one thing. Balance. How do we get balance? If there were many different orgnisms made. Before i continue, i must say that our genes are like a book, made of different components. but they were put in perfect order by God, like a writer who made a book. Now then, God most likely made different organisms, and they reproduced to make their own family trees. Like cat trees, dog trees, ape trees, plants trees, and all other species of animal are part of their own individual tree... with the exception of Adam and Eve.

Anyways... that's what I believe evolution is. God's plan to make all animals by making their own biological codes and helps them grow, adapt, and evolve according, then he made humans after all the diverse animals were made.

Anyways, that's enough rambling.

Umm no , after God created animals on 6th Day he created additional ones from ground in garden so Adam could name them .

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Love that God did this so we can destroy that stupid evolution theory about one cell ect . You can clearly see Adam was alive when God created more animals in garden . Also earth is flat with dome you should read genesis more often .

 

[Brightmoon]

Umm no , after God created animals on 6th Day he created additional ones from ground in garden so Adam could name them .

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Love that God did this so we can destroy that stupid evolution theory about one cell ect . You can clearly see Adam was alive when God created more animals in garden . Also earth is flat with dome you should read genesis more often .

no thanks I learned science from scientists and researchers not a Bronze Age creation myth . By the way the earth isn’t flat. What flatearthers and creationists do is read a set of essays that support their beliefs. They never look at evidence that disproves their ideas . Scientists don’t do that and if they do it’s an easy way to be incompetent. It called confirmation bias and it’s an easy way to come to a wrong conclusion.

 

[USincognito]

Love that God did this so we can destroy that stupid evolution theory about one cell ect .

How does your interpretation of one line of Genesis "destroy" the mountains of evidence supporting evolution?

Also earth is flat with dome you should read genesis more often .

 

[Micah888]

What Evolution fails to mention

God.

 

[Micah888]

...mountains of evidence supporting evolution...

Just like the mountains of evidence supporting global warming?

 

[USincognito]

Just like the mountains of evidence supporting global warming?

Yes. Would you like to read, and address a small portion of the evidence supporting evolution? Let me get my white board get back to you...

 

[USincognito]

Just like the mountains of evidence supporting global warming?

Here you go. I can't wait to see what your response will be.
The evidence for evolution for Kenny'sID thread

 

[USincognito]

God.

Yeah, neither does plate tectonics, dynamo theory, germ theory of disease, etc. Funny, isn't it.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Hello. I do not wish to debate, but merely point out a fact that the two necessary components for evolution, life coming from non-life, and a species becoming an entirely new species have never been observed. You can make the argument that we can't observe speciation because it takes millions of years for it to occur, but that does not make it science fact. Also Darwin's finches demonstrates genetic variability and is evidence towards adaptation not necessarily speciation. In conclusion speciation and abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) have not yet been or may never be observed and therefore should not be treated as science fact, but a belief.

 

[Brightmoon]

God.

. You mean the god of the gaps because we already know a lot about how the universe , this planet and the life on it formed. Because the real God created this universe not the fantasy version you want to believe in . Notice I said believe as you have no evidence to back up your claims and even a scientifically literate high schooler can give you a brief summary of that evidence about natural phenomena

 

[Brightmoon]

Hello. I do not wish to debate, but merely point out a fact that the two necessary components for evolution, life coming from non-life, and a species becoming an entirely new species have never been observed. You can make the argument that we can't observe speciation because it takes millions of years for it to occur, but that does not make it science fact. Also Darwin's finches demonstrates genetic variability and is evidence towards adaptation not necessarily speciation. In conclusion speciation and abiogenesis (life coming from non-life) have not yet been or may never be observed and therefore should not be treated as science fact, but a belief.

You really shouldn’t get your info from creationist sources . They have a well deserved reputation for lying. Any polyploid species meets your criteria for observed speciation: corn or maize , bread wheat , macaroni wheat . These are the ones you’d be familiar with.

Abiogenesis is a different field of study from evolution. Evolution is basically changes in a population’s genome thru time. Abiogenesis is how life started from chemicals

 

[USincognito]

Hello. I do not wish to debate,

Fantastic, let's have a discussion then.

but merely point out a fact that the two necessary components for evolution, life coming from non-life,

That is sort of, but not quite right. Evolution merely requires that there be life that reproduces and passes on genetic material imperfectly to offspring. How that life came to be simply isn't addressed by the theory of evolution and life on earth could have come from numerous origins (abiogenesis, panspermia, creation by God) and none of those particular origins would effect evolution one iota.

and a species becoming an entirely new species have never been observed.

We actually have a number of examples of observed speciation, but before going into details, I want to make sure you don't have a straw man understanding of what that entails. Could you provide us with a hypothetical example of what you mean by "a species becoming an entirely new species"? We can go from there.

 

[Ohj1n37]

Any polyploid species meets your criteria for observed speciation: corn or maize , bread wheat , macaroni wheat . These are the ones you’d be familiar with.

Has what you speak of been tested and repeated? Can it be explained by genetic variability? Adaptation is an observed phenomenon; humans have been breeding things for a long time. Something to note breeding causes genetic variability to decrease and evolution requires an increase.

How that life came to be simply isn't addressed by the theory of evolution and life on earth could have come from numerous origins (abiogenesis, panspermia, creation by God) and none of those particular origins would effect evolution one iota.

I believe if there was no organism to evolve then that would affect evolution.

Could you provide us with a hypothetical example of what you mean by "a species becoming an entirely new species"?

I'll try, but please do not become hostile towards me. Last time I heard the phrase "straw man understanding" I was verbally assaulted by a group of atheists. I would say an example of a species becoming an entirely new species would be an organism that over time gained genetic code that it did not originally have. I believe in genetic variation, adaptation, and breeding because all of which have been observed.

 

[pitabread]

I believe if there was no organism to evolve then that would affect evolution.

Sure, but life exists. Therefore it's a bit of a moot point.

Now perhaps you mean that without an explanation for the origin of life, therefore we can't have an explanation for its subsequent evolution. However, that is not the case at the moment. Modern evolutionary theory deals with evolving populations after life exists and is not explicitly dependent on the origin of life.

 

[USincognito]

I believe if there was no organism to evolve then that would affect evolution.

Right. I said exactly that. And I gave three different options for how the first organism (or organisms) could come to be, yet none of those different origins would effect evolution in the slightest.

I'll try, but please do not become hostile towards me. Last time I heard the phrase "straw man understanding" I was verbally assaulted by a group of atheists.

I suggested in good faith that we have a discussion. How about we have that discussion and not make any assumptions about how the other person will react? Also CF has very stringent rules on how we treat each other. This is more of ladies and gentleman's club than an MMA octagon.

I would say an example of a species becoming an entirely new species would be an organism that over time gained genetic code that it did not originally have. I believe in genetic variation, adaptation, and breeding because all of which have been observed.

I'm terribly sorry, but I guess I wasn't clear as to what I was asking for. I was hoping you could give me literally a hypothetical example of "species X evolves into "species Y (or Y and Z)" sort of thing. What I'm getting at is I want to make sure you don't think that evolution is an extant species evolving into another extant species or or single generation saltation like an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies.