When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

Doesn't evolution depend on some observable continuum? If unobserved evolution filled those gaps isn't that a scientific "god of the gaps"?

It is evolution in the gaps and is used frequently.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please, let's see that evidence. Show us the genome for the first living organisms on Earth.

The first evidence of life on earth are fossils which show complex features already in place.

 

[Loudmouth]

well I think the whole thing started with Darwin and then it just happened and everyone had their evolution glasses on .

you know the other day I was trying to explain clans and how genetic inheritance really works and when we got down to the point where I started showing line of ladies over ages in the same clan and how predictable genetic really is, if you know the laws of it .. and how they looked exactly the same because it is all so predictable.

Are you saying that if you had a picture of all these women that you couldn't tell them apart? You wouldn't be able to tell mother from daughter?

they have to have a magical genes that are all crap shoot of mystery. or evolution can't happen.

What are you talking about?

I think evolution started when Darwin gave man the excuse to see what they wanted to see and to not questions anything else. at least those lies did.

Then what would real evidence for evolution look like? Why are the proposed transitional fossils really not transitional? Why aren't the genetic markers that scientists point to not evidence for common ancestry? How should the genetic and fossil evidence be different if evolution were true?

 

[Loudmouth]

The first evidence of life on earth are fossils which show complex features already in place.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

It is evolution in the gaps and is used frequently.

How so?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

All we have of evidence are the ones we have fossil evidence for. If you want to imagine what other life might have been or could have been or even were there is no evidence there to show it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How so?

When someone claims evolution when that something is not in evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

All we have of evidence are the ones we have fossil evidence for.

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

If you want to imagine what other life might have been or could have been or even were there is no evidence there to show it.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

When someone claims evolution when that something is not in evidence.

Such as?

 

[Chicken Little]

'Loudmouth' Are you saying that if you had a picture of all these women that you couldn't tell them apart? You wouldn't be able to tell mother from daughter?

no you would only understand it as reincarnation.

ok how about 1200 + years apart of the same family looking like they are still people in the same family and that nearly identical more than 1200+ and 300 years apart to now . well ... but minus the 6 fingers and 6 toes and because we now have stopped doing the head shaping/ flat heads of our children now days.
I am talking about things being truly kind from kind and a comprehensive idea that really means.
and proof of why evolution can't be true. but every time I try and explain it some new ager starts screaming about reincarnation. but it is very predictable once you understand what "a kind" really really means.

What are you talking about?

easy you have a lot of faith in your religions magic and in what they want you think you see . ;P

 

[Loudmouth]

no you would only understand it as reincarnation.

What?

ok how about 1200 + years apart of the same family looking like they are still people in the same family and that nearly identical more than 1200+ and 300 years apart to now .

1200 years is only 0.024% of the 5,000,000 year time span from the common ancestor shared with chimps to us. Not that surprising that humans look nearly identical.

Also, what would we see if we compare their genomes?

I am talking about things being truly kind from kind and a comprehensive idea that really means.

I have yet to meet a creationist who could define what a kind is in reference to genetics and morphology.

easy you have a lot of faith in your religions magic and in what they want you think you see . ;P

What faith?

How should fossils and genetic evidence be different if evolution were really true?

 

[Chicken Little]

is only 0.024% of the 5,000,000 year time span from the common ancestor shared with chimps to us. Not that surprising that humans look nearly identical.

that is all assumptions and more lies..
Back to reality after that commercial enforcement .

In the mean time your priests only look at maybe 6 % of the material of his creation which is equivalent to telling us who painted the chassis on a chevy truck and how that paint job proves how it evolved and billions of years . and to think of all the endless lies that has spawned by a paint job.
They don't know what they are looking at. but whatever it is they think they see it is always
"indisputable" and "billions and billion" of years old.. rotf.
They still don't have a clue what they are looking at.
it is very sad.

 

[brinny]

that is all assumptions and more lies..
Back to reality after that commercial enforcement .

In the mean time your priests only look at maybe 6 % of the material of his creation which is equivalent to telling us who painted the chassis on a chevy truck and how that paint job proves it evolved and billions of years .. . and think of all the endless lies that has spawned by a paint job.
They don't know what they are looking at. but whatever it is they think they see it is always
"indisputable" and "billions and billion" of years old.. rotf.
They still don't have a clue what they are looking at.
it is very sad.

Yes, it is sad. All that faith in a mere theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

that is all assumptions and more lies..

It isn't assumed. It is derived from the comparison of the human and chimps genomes.

"To study the genomic divergences among hominoids and to estimate the effective population size of the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees, we selected 53 autosomal intergenic nonrepetitive DNA segments from the human genome and sequenced them in a human, a chimpanzee, a gorilla, and an orangutan."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11170892?dopt=Abstract

That peer reviewed scientific research paper has a 4.6 to 6.2 million year divergence time. This is a measurement, not an assumption.

In the mean time your priests only look maybe 6 % of the material of his creation which is equivalent to telling us who painted the chassis on a chevy truck and how that paint job proves it evolved.

All of the evidence we have is consistent with evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, it is sad. All that faith in a mere theory.

What faith?

 

[brinny]

What faith?

"Believing and trusting" in something.

Faith.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[bhsmte]

"Believing and trusting" in something.

Faith.

Again, you are using a definition of faith that many do not subscribe to.

One can believe and trust in a theory, because of objective evidence to support it and no faith is required, because the evidence is present.

When one believes in something when there is not objective evidence to support the belief, this is when faith comes into play.

Of course, others can chime in, in regards to how they use the term; faith and trust.

 

[brinny]

Again, you are using a definition of faith that many do not subscribe to.

One can believe and trust in a theory, because of objective evidence to support it and no faith is required, because the evidence is present.

When one believes in something when there is not objective evidence to support the belief, this is when faith comes into play.

Of course, others can chime in, in regards to how they use the term; faith and trust.

trusting in and believing in a theory requires quite a bit o' faith...

but to each his own.

 

[bhsmte]

trusting in and believing in a theory requires quite a bit o' faith...

but to each his own.

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