When did evolution begin?

[Shemjaza]

That's how radically new creatures are created. For example, in Darwinian evolution, lots and lots and lots of random mutations occur and from an alleged life form, both pine trees and elephants are produced.

Sure, over a very long period of time. The two examples you are suggesting are very, very, very distantly related. They are different even down to cell structure... but their DNA is still the same chemicals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Their absence of evidence speaks loudly.

Amazing! You are correct. Creationists have no scientific evidence.

Most don't even understand the concept.

 

[justlookinla]

No, random mutation is internal. Change can be the result of external forces, such as eviroment, which would mean the driver is natural selection and not random mutation. For example, a creature is introduced to a new environment, where a particular food source is available and that species selects within it's species those creatures that are better able to use that food source, those that can not are not bred and do not pass on that inability to use that new food source. No mutation is occurring, just selection.

Right, there's only selection occurring in that scenario. But the selection is on existing life forms and doesn't create anything new.

With time and generations passing, the better suited species will become unable to breed with the parent species. And so a new species has developed. Ring Species are one such example.

The better suited species were created initially by random mutation......somehow.

 

[justlookinla]

Sure, over a very long period of time. The two examples you are suggesting are very, very, very distantly related. They are different even down to cell structure... but their DNA is still the same chemicals.

This simply a guess on the part of those who embrace Darwinist evolution.

 

[Balstrome]

Yes. But what you get is a new variety of an existing life form, not a radically new creature.

You have a part missing from your reply. You need to factor in change of time. What colour was your grandparents hair, your parents hair, yours? Expand that to a large span of time and generations and you will find a new species evolving. (I am talking about change over time, not hair!)

 

[Subduction Zone]

The judge has no training or education in biology. Educated and trained biologists all observe design. If you want to claim this appearance is an incorrect or deceptive you need to show how this is produced with evidence.

But he is very very well versed in evidence. Something that it would behoove creationists to learn.

All you can do is deny it is objective evidence but the evidence speaks for itself.

No, we can point out the obvious fact that you have no scientific evidence.

 

[Shemjaza]

Yes, if we know the process of how the chemicals react together, (which we do) then we can predict the result that should occur. Yes, it requires a vast amount of knowledge, but it is possible. My point is that with evolution there is no need to invoke a supernatural cause, because we can understand the individual steps and each of those steps relies on the previous step and predicts the future step. No gods needed.

I think you are using an extremely broad definition of "possible".

While I agree 100% that no supernatural cause is needed to show each individual step of evolution coming from a naturalistic cause... the concept of predicting it on a macro scale along with ALL environmental possibilities is so huge that ironically you would need to be an omniscient god to do it.

 

[Balstrome]

The better suited species were created initially by random mutation......somehow.

Nope, the species was afford access to a better source of food, and selected on that only. No mutation was needed. Because those who did not have access to the new food source could not develop in the same way as the "lucky" ones. Yes, once the new food source was being used, mutation would step in, but only because there was a reason for the mutation to occur. No need for a somehow, we have a reason for the mutation as well as when it would happen.

 

[Shemjaza]

You have a part missing from your reply. You need to factor in change of time. What colour was your grandparents hair, your parents hair, yours? Expand that to a large span of time and generations and you will find a new species evolving. (I am talking about change over time, not hair!)

I don't know what you think I'm saying.

I absolutely accept both speciation and change of species... but I felt it was important to clarify that this isn't visible on a generation by generation scale.

 

[Balstrome]

I think you are using an extremely broad definition of "possible".
... you would need to be an omniscient god to do it.

But it is possible, and no need for magic. The thing that "stops" us, is that we have vast amount of prior evidence of these processes happening, which we can match to individual steps to confirm the claim. This is why evolution works so well, that science no longer needs show the workings to that level. (Hawkings, does not have to prove 1 + 1 = 2, when he calculates gravitational attraction around a black hole.)

 

[Shemjaza]

This simply a guess on the part of those who embrace Darwinist evolution.

No, it is an inference from evidence.

Plants are made up of the same genetic chemical raw material as animals, DNA. Plants also fall into a nested hierarchy both by fossil evidence and genetic evidence.

Both plants and animals get simpler as you get into the ancient past.

So, we infer that the truly ancient single celled early life gave rise to both kingdoms.

 

[Shemjaza]

But it is possible, and no need for magic. The thing that "stops" us, is that we have vast amount of prior evidence of these processes happening, which we can match to individual steps to confirm the claim. This is why evolution works so well, that science no longer needs show the workings to that level. (Hawkings, does not have to prove 1 + 1 = 2, when he calculates gravitational attraction around a black hole.)

Sure, evolution happens and we have masses of evidence for how and why... we still can't use it as crystal ball to describe the humanity of 100k in the future. Educated guess sure, but predict? No.

 

[justlookinla]

Nope, the species was afford access to a better source of food, and selected on that only. No mutation was needed. Because those who did not have access to the new food source could not develop in the same way as the "lucky" ones.

This would be an example of an existing life form continuing to be an existing life form. Nothing's changed other than the life form may flourish....or not.

Yes, once the new food source was being used, mutation would step in, but only because there was a reason for the mutation to occur. No need for a somehow, we have a reason for the mutation as well as when it would happen.

Are you suggesting that mutation isn't random, but driven by a purpose at a specific time?

 

[justlookinla]

No, it is an inference from evidence.

Inference = guess. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that a life form would produce both a pine tree and an elephant.

Plants are made up of the same genetic chemical raw material as animals, DNA.

Common building materials.

Plants also fall into a nested hierarchy both by fossil evidence and genetic evidence.

This doesn't address the method whereby pine trees and elephants were created from the same life form.

Both plants and animals get simpler as you get into the ancient past.

So, we infer that the truly ancient single celled early life gave rise to both kingdoms.

Infer=guess. But not based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

Double post.

 

[Shemjaza]

Inference = guess. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that a life form would produce both a pine tree and an elephant.

So... no evidence, then I talk about evidence.

Common building materials.

I said, nested hierarchy. Expected in an evolutionary model... not necessary for any kind of ID.

This doesn't address the method whereby pine trees and elephants were created from the same life form.

Long term diverging.

The original species that separated into the single celled "plants" and single celled "animals" would have been much more alike.

Infer=guess. But not based on the scientific method.

You are really torturing the definition of the word "guess". If the accused's DNA and fingerprints are found on the scene and a bloody knife with the victims blood in their pocket... then are we only guessing that they are guilty?

 

[Balstrome]

Are you suggesting that mutation isn't random, but driven by a purpose at a specific time?

The randomness, really can be said to occur at the lowest smallest level, such as the Quantum level. Because after that, there is cause and effect, which might seem like purpose driven from the point of view of those who need such devices, but a cell developing a better mechanism to use sugars, is in fact not a mutation, but the result of a long chain on previous changes, coming from the quantum level random occurrence.

There are lots of possibilities and all it takes is one success for the chain to start. Consider a jig saw puzzle, the pieces all heaped on the table. Total chaos, but once you realise that one side has a picture on it and the other does not, the puzzle is basically solved.

 

[Balstrome]

Of course this will all be resolved, if we where to find bunnies in the Cretaceous fossil record. Just one bunny bone and Darwin will be booted out the door. (Well maybe not, because we do have more than fossils to show evolution is the only story worth learning.)

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know that hydrogen atoms combine with oxygen atoms to form a water molecule? Well that type of chemical process is how things evolve. Chemicals bond to each, and collections of them show traits that are useful to keep these collection of bonded chemicals together. Ratchet that up orders of magnitude to the cell level and you have "real" evolution having. (By real, I mean predicable evolution). At that stage throw in natural selection together with random mutations and you get a process that can change species function.

The thing is, in this whole process, we understand how these things work, right down to the bonding of chemicals. And nowhere in that process is there any need for a god to be involved, or any sign of something supernatural happening. This is why evolution is a success, it explains everything without the need for gods.

The thing is, the whole process isn't understood nor have all predictions been successful. You don't if God is needed, how would you know? Evolution does not explain "everything" or does it come even close. Your thoughts alone are not explained or understood how they exist. So the thing is...you don't have a clue whether God is needed or not.

 

[justlookinla]

So... no evidence, then I talk about evidence.

What evidence, based on the scientific method.

I said, nested hierarchy. Expected in an evolutionary model... not necessary for any kind of ID.

You're not addressing the impetus which created a pine tree and elephant from a common life form.

Long term diverging.
The original species that separated into the single celled "plants" and single celled "animals" would have been much more alike.

How? Why? What impetus? Based on the scientific method.

You are really torturing the definition of the word "guess". If the accused's DNA and fingerprints are found on the scene and a bloody knife with the victims blood in their pocket... then are we only guessing that they are guilty?

Please keep the focus on the claim that something created a pine tree and an elephant from the same life form. So far, there's only been Darwinist guesses.