Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
Amazing! You are correct. Creationists have no scientific evidence.Their absence of evidence speaks loudly.
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.
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.
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.
Yes. But what you get is a new variety of an existing life form, not a radically new creature.
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.
All you can do is deny it is objective evidence but the evidence speaks for itself.
I think you are using an extremely broad definition of "possible".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.
The better suited species were created initially by random mutation......somehow.
I don't know what you think I'm saying.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 think you are using an extremely broad definition of "possible".
... you would need to be an omniscient god to do it.
No, it is an inference from evidence.This simply a guess on the part of those who embrace Darwinist evolution.
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.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.)
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.
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.
Inference = guess. There is no evidence, based on the scientific method, that a life form would produce both a pine tree and an elephant.
Common building materials.
This doesn't address the method whereby pine trees and elephants were created from the same life form.
Infer=guess. But not based on the scientific method.
Are you suggesting that mutation isn't random, but driven by a purpose at a specific time?
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.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.
So... no evidence, then I talk about evidence.
I said, nested hierarchy. Expected in an evolutionary model... not necessary for any kind of ID.
Long term diverging.
The original species that separated into the single celled "plants" and single celled "animals" would have been much more alike.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?