When did evolution begin?

[brinny]

Your opinion and I don't think you can determine the reasoning behind why others trust a theory. You can always ask them though, instead of claiming to know why they believe in a theory.

For instance, I have seen many on these boards, claim they believe in a theory because of all the evidence to support it and they trust theory and no faith is required, because faith is only required, when evidence is absent.

Francis Collins and his take on the evidence that so strongly supports Darwin's theory, would be a good example:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

http://biologos.org/blog/francis-collins-and-karl-giberson-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-2

"Trusting" ANY theory requires MUCH faith in my opinion.

You or anyone else is entitled to disagree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you don't have the evidence to back your claims that life has always been complex.



I would prefer that we be honest about it and say that we don't know one way or the other.

False. That is what evidence we do have. To use conjecture to determine what could have been before is just that conjecture. I have claimed that all the evidence that is available to us is of very complex structures which would require complex inner workings. Even if I claimed life has always been complex the evidence supports that conclusion and there is no evidence for anything but the complexity of living forms in evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

"Trusting" ANY theory requires MUCH faith in my opinion.

You or anyone else is entitled to disagree.

Why don't you ask those who agree with certain theories, whether they rely on faith to believe them and or what the reasons are they believe in the theory.

That is, if you really want to know what they themselves think and not what you assume, they think.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How did you determine that those fossils were the first life on Earth? What complex structures did they have?

THE FIRST EVIDENCE of life on earth. We find evidence of bacteria which have not changed for millions and millions of years and then we find life in the Cambrian with complex eyes and even brains.

 

[Chicken Little]

"Believing and trusting" in something.

Faith.

yes Brinny they are comparing the paint job of a monkey to the paint job of a human see only about 3- 5 % of each of that being / kind . and with all the finesse of a psychic with a Crystal ball proceed to by that paint job only tell us how it evolved from one to the other.

The first really really big lie in their theories about genetics is that the other part of the helix is the mothers contribution to that being . it isn't really .
it is only the mother' s father contribution to that beings type or race . so they are only analyzing two direct male lines Types at a total of maybe 6 % and of that type of that is only really controlled mostly by the fathers half of that helix which both sides total maybe 6%..
so the next question is where is mommy? yep she is the chevy truck..

or maybe the idea should be more like mannequin (but it seems with a dress that is billions of years old and related to a monkey)
they got all those goofy ideas from the paint job on a chassis or maybe a skirt and shirt on a mannequin .
and so those called scientists they think of themselves and their contributions to his creation as way way way more important than it seems God did .

 

[brinny]

yes Brinny they are comparing the paint job of a monkey to the paint job of a human see only about 3- 5 % of each of that being / kind . and with all the finesse of a psychic with a Crystal ball proceed to by that paint job only tell us how it evolved from one to the other.

The first really really big lie in their theories about genetics is that the other part of the helix is the mothers contribution to that being . it isn't really .
it is only the mother' s father contribution to that beings type or race . so they are only analyzing two direct male lines Types at a total of maybe 6 % and of that type of that is only really controlled mostly by the fathers half of that helix which both sides total maybe 6%..
so the next question is where is mommy? yep she is the chevy truck..

or maybe the idea should be more like mannequin (but it seems with a dress that is billions of years old and related to a monkey)
they got all those goofy ideas from the paint job on a chassis or maybe a skirt and shirt on a mannequin .
and so those called scientists they think of themselves and their contributions to his creation as way way way more important than it seems God did .

and not to mention that it all is based on theory......

 

[brinny]

Why don't you ask those who agree with certain theories, whether they rely on faith to believe them and or what the reasons are they believe in the theory.

That is, if you really want to know what they themselves think and not what you assume, they think.

theories are theories.....trusting in theories is ev'ry one's right if they so wish...

yet they are still "theories"

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

When did evolution begin?

Wherever it's convenient for evolutionists to put it for their theory to work.

 

[bhsmte]

and not to mention that it all is based on theory......

Indeed, just like the theories that have allowed you to:

-keep your house cool in the summer and warm in the winter
-keep food fresh in a refrigerator
-drive a car wherever you want to go
-watch television
-use that smart phone you have to stay in touch
-keep yourself and your children healthy through medical science
-type your informative messages on this board

Ah yes, those silly theories, that seem to produce reliable results, in everyone's life and are relied on, every second of every day.

LOL!

 

[Loudmouth]

theories are theories.....trusting in theories is ev'ry one's right if they so wish...

yet they are still "theories"

Theories are the highest anything gets in science. The theory that germs cause diseases is still a theory. Relativity is still a theory. Atoms are still a theory.

 

[brinny]

Theories are the highest anything gets in science. The theory that germs cause diseases is still a theory. Relativity is still a theory. Atoms are still a theory.

A "theory" is perfect, without error?

The bottom line is that man is "guessing" his way through science. Always HAS been that way. Theory is a form of "guessing" and it's based on the "likelihood" of an action or reaction from a stimulus, etc.

 

[pgp_protector]

How did you get this.

A "theory" is perfect, without error?

From this ?

Theories are the highest anything gets in science. The theory that germs cause diseases is still a theory. Relativity is still a theory. Atoms are still a theory.

 

[bhsmte]

A "theory" is perfect, without error?

Do you know what a perfect theory would look like?

The bottom line is, whether you acknowledge it or not, you rely on theories being accurate to produce reliable results for you, everyday of your life.

 

[brinny]

Do you know what a perfect theory would look like?

The bottom line is, whether you acknowledge it or not, you rely on theories being accurate to produce reliable results for you, everyday of your life.

If it's perfect, why would it be called a theory?

 

[bhsmte]

If it's perfect, why would it be called a theory?

Can't go higher than a theory in science.

Just keep banking on them producing reliable results, as they have for you everyday of your life.

 

[brinny]

Can't go higher than a theory in science.

Just keep banking on them producing reliable results, as they have for you everyday of your life.

Can't go higher than a theory in science.

Why not?

 

[bhsmte]

Why not?

This is where educating one's self comes in handy and a person can only do that on their own.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20

 

[brinny]

This is where educating one's self comes in handy and a person can only do that on their own.

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_20

not following..

what has that got to do with:

Can't go higher than a theory in science.

 

[Loudmouth]

A "theory" is perfect, without error?

Of course not. A theory is tentative and always open to change. Religions are known for dogma, not science.

 

[bhsmte]

not following..

what has that got to do with:

Simple, if you understood how science works, you would understand why a theory is the highest explanation of how nature works.

If you educate yourself on how science works, you wouldn't be asking this question and only you, can decide to educate yourself.