When did evolution begin?

[Subduction Zone]

Alright, here you are once again providing no evidence and instead claiming we don't know what evidence is or the concept of it. Yet, you provide none. NONE. All you do is point to us and make these bizarre claims. We aren't scared at all, I've presented what the scientific method entails, how Design is observed scientifically and the tests that are done to confirm it. I'll give it to you again in case you missed it.

I don't need to provide any evidence when I observe the fact that you have no evidence. If I make a positive claim then I need to provide evidence. If I merely point out where you have failed to provide evidence then you can show that I am wrong by providing an example of evidence. That you have.

First of all, not all science is falsifiable and testable doesn't mean falsifiable. We can test things and still not have them falsifiable. For instance, we could hypothesize that there are planets in our universe that have rings around them. We could observe in our universe Saturn that shows there is at least one planet that has rings and we know this strictly from observation, we observe rings. We can't test the rings, and we can't falsify the hypothesis however, because we don't know if there is more than one planet with rings. There is evidence that shows that there is one so perhaps there reasonably could be more but we can't know that with the technology we have now. That doesn't mean it isn't science. Observation is the central element in science.

If you properly define "rings" we could test those claims. And who says that we don't know if there is more than one planet with rings:

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/195-How-many-planets-in-the-Solar-System-have-rings-

The Scientific Process
A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
2. Make your hypothesis
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.

We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.

The problem is that all of your "predictions" were observed ahead of time. A proper test would find something that was not known to already exist. And once again the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a rather large failure of how a structure would be built by an intelligent designer, yet it is exactly the sort of flaw that we would expect to find if evolution was correct.

We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.

The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.

Nope, so far all you are doing is using the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy. Again, a proper test would be of something that was not observed before you made your predictions. It is easy as can be to make "predictions" after the fact.

The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.

That is actually an observation and not a claim.

Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such.

Now you are using circular reasoning.

From the link above:
One important thing to note is that human senses are subject to errors in perception e.g., optical illusions which can results in erroneous scientific observation. This is why scientific instruments were developed to improve and magnify human powers of observations like microscopes, cameras, telescopes, weight scales, computers, oscilloscopes, radio receivers etc. Emphasis mine. We see that we are not perceiving an illusion but actual elements of design. The only way this appearance (evidence) is an illusion is not by error in perceptions or optical illusions but that the design was produced by evolutionary processes which has not been shown by any evidence.

No, you have not shown that yet in any reasonable way. All observed traits are more sensibly explained by evolution.

Now "put up or shut up". Either give the specific evidence that evolution produced this apparent deliberate design with a purpose observed in all organisms, stop making bizarre accusations against us to deflect your lack of it or SHUT UP.

Sorry, I am not about to do either since you failed miserably in your attempt at rationalization for your shortcomings.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show one example.

And please, you cannot honestly say that that website has not been caught lying countless times.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

http://www.nature.com/news/reach-out-to-defend-evolution-1.10640

There are two.

I am not familiar with the site but I am not taking your word for it without proof that they have been caught lying countless times. I will read the link given to you and see if there are any "lies". See the problem with materialists, they think a disagreeing conclusion to the evidence is a lie. A common tactic.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sorry, I don't read articles from sources that have been shown to lie. It is not a valid science source either since they require their workers to drop the scientific method.

This sounds reasonable to me,

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

Dawkins considers only its main destination, the larynx. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.

That is, Dawkins considers only its main destination, the larynx. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.

Even apart from this function, there are features that are the result of embryonic development—not because of evolution, but because the embryo develops from a single cell in a certain order. For example, the embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This sounds reasonable to me,

“As the recurrent nerve hooks around the subclavian artery or aorta, it gives off several cardiac filaments to the deep part of the cardiac plexus. As it ascends in the neck it gives off branches, more numerous on the left than on the right side, to the mucous membrane and muscular coat of the esophagus; branches to the mucous membrane and muscular fibers of the trachea; and some pharyngeal filaments to the Constrictor pharyngis inferior.”

Dawkins considers only its main destination, the larynx. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.

That is, Dawkins considers only its main destination, the larynx. In reality, the nerve also has a role in supplying parts of the heart, windpipe muscles and mucous membranes, and the esophagus, which could explain its route.

Even apart from this function, there are features that are the result of embryonic development—not because of evolution, but because the embryo develops from a single cell in a certain order. For example, the embryo needs a functioning simple heart early on; this later descends to its position in the chest, dragging the nerve bundle with it.

What you are in denial about is that those functions could easily be served by a nerves that run more directly from those sources. The nerve always has had multiple tasks as it evolved. But the fact is that an intelligent designer could have laid out a much more sensible system. It is what one would observe if evolution occurred and not what an intelligent designer would make.

 

[Subduction Zone]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/15-answers-to-creationist/

http://www.nature.com/news/reach-out-to-defend-evolution-1.10640

There are two.

I am not familiar with the site but I am not taking your word for it without proof that they have been caught lying countless times. I will read the link given to you and see if there are any "lies". See the problem with materialists, they think a disagreeing conclusion to the evidence is a lie. A common tactic.

How are any of those arguments "strawman" arguments? They may not be answers to your version of creation, but as we all know creationists come in all sorts of flavors and all sorts of degrees of craziness.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't need to provide any evidence when I observe the fact that you have no evidence. If I make a positive claim then I need to provide evidence. If I merely point out where you have failed to provide evidence then you can show that I am wrong by providing an example of evidence. That you have.

Materialists like to wrap themselves up in the belief that they need not provide anything to support their own beliefs. Dawkins makes a positive claim that evolution produces the apparent and deliberate design with a purpose in all organisms. That has the burden of proof since all biologists agree that the apparent and deliberate design with a purpose exists in all living in organisms confirmed by the aid of modern technologies. You if you agree with Dawkins must supply such evidence since he hasn't either.

If you properly define "rings" we could test those claims. And who says that we don't know if there is more than one planet with rings:

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/195-How-many-planets-in-the-Solar-System-have-rings-

Do you just skim my posts and "think" you know what I might be saying? I said we can't know how many planets have rings in the universe because we can't at this time observe the entire universe. So the hypothesis that there are "planets" with rings in our universe. We know one exists but we can't falsify the hypothesis unless we could observe the entire universe.

The problem is that all of your "predictions" were observed ahead of time. A proper test would find something that was not known to already exist. And once again the laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a rather large failure of how a structure would be built by an intelligent designer, yet it is exactly the sort of flaw that we would expect to find if evolution was correct.

This is simply false. Design has been observed for thousands of years in the outer appearance of living things but we had no way to determine if they really were as "design like" in their structures, features, systems and functions. We see outer design and predict if design is real we should observe human like design features working within the organisms as well as outward appearances. We needed the technology we have today to do it. The prediction has confirmed the outer appearance of design and shown that it is within the organism even more deliberately.

Nope, so far all you are doing is using the Texas Sharp Shooter Fallacy. Again, a proper test would be of something that was not observed before you made your predictions. It is easy as can be to make "predictions" after the fact.

No see above.

That is actually an observation and not a claim.

Absolutely not. Dawkins is trying to explain the evidence using evolution.

Now you are using circular reasoning.

IF we were to observe the design features and systems..etc and they did not resemble human design when we have the technology to actually see what they are then it would falsify our predictions. However, the design predictions are confirmed.

No, you have not shown that yet in any reasonable way. All observed traits are more sensibly explained by evolution.

You are begging the question. You have not provided ANY specific evidence that provides confirmation that evolution produces this mimicking of deliberate design with a purpose in all living organism. You make assertions, bizarre accusations against us and yet no shred of evidence is ever produced that explains how evolution has produced this phenomena.

Sorry, I am not about to do either since you failed miserably in your attempt at rationalization for your shortcomings.

IF you think for one minute that people can't see through your lack of evidence and deflection from having to provide evidence to support your view by falsely claiming we haven't shown our view in any reasonable way; you are utterly wrong. You have no evidence, you know it and so you will continue your baseless, faith based view that evolution is all powerful and can do anything and you will continue to believe in your illusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What you are in denial about is that those functions could easily be served by a nerves that run more directly from those sources. The nerve always has had multiple tasks as it evolved. But the fact is that an intelligent designer could have laid out a much more sensible system. It is what one would observe if evolution occurred and not what an intelligent designer would make.

Disagreement about the way something is designed is not evidence against design nor evidence for evolution producing the apparent deliberate design with a purpose observed in all living organisms.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How are any of those arguments "strawman" arguments? They may not be answers to your version of creation, but as we all know creationists come in all sorts of flavors and all sorts of degrees of craziness.

They don't categorize different views of creationists and lump them all together to make it appear that creationists are all ignorant, uneducated buffoons to make their own case for their point of view. I gave you two. Back up your accusations of lying countless times for the site that was given to you.

 

[Shemjaza]

I expect you to once again ignore giving evidence for the HOW, based on the scientific method, and respond with the evasive 'nested hierarchy' response. But, I'm not going to give up.

Ah, okay. I think I see what you're asking.

Mutations can account for the differences between those species.

It is a trivial fact that all life is constantly receiving small variations into populations via mutations in the DNA. These changes leave small changes in both phenotype and suitability.

Evolution is simply the better survivors in any generation passing on their genes. all these tiny, yet different changes can yeild very different, yet effective techniques for survival.

Now, IF, this was the explanation of elephants and pine trees we would expect to find evidence in the fossil record and genetic codes... and we do. That, is the scientific evidence for the evolution of elephants and pine trees... along with the rest of the plants and animals.

 

[lucaspa]

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" assures us that the particular fossils found in the successive layers of sediments, wherever they are found around the earth, do not appear in the previous or later sediment layers. If this is true none of those particular life forms, unique only to those sediment layers, evolved at all, but were destroyed when that period ended.

You need to quote us what Nye said exactly. What is correct is that there is a succession of living forms in the fossil record.

What you are stating here is the position held by Lyell, Sedgwick, Owen, and most scientists in the period 1820-1860: successive creations.

So, if evolution did occur to those species it must have occurred during the very brief period between those time frames, for which there is no fossil evidence. And the change would have been quite drastic.

That can happen. What you are stating here is a garbled form of Punctuated Equilibrium. In most cases, speciation occurs in small populations geographically isolated from the main population. It's a big planet and there are very few fossil digs. So, at any given location, most often what is seen is new species moving in "suddenly" and replacing the population that was at the site. It's like having your neighbors move in while you are at work: they didn't just suddenly spring into existence with 2 kids and a dog. The family developed somewhere else and then moved in when you didn't see them.

However, yes, major changes can happen "rapidly", in geological terms. The average bedding plane (sediment layer) represents 60,000 years. A lot of time. G. Ledyard Stebbins has done some calculations. Start with a population of mice sized rodents that gains an average of 0.1% of weight per generation. That change is far too small for us to notice (due to individual variations) over a human lifespan. Nevertheless, over 12,000 generations this would produce a population having a mean weight of 6,457,400 grams, which is about the size of a large elephant. If the mean duration of a single generation were about five years, which is much longer than that of a mouse (10-12 weeks), but shorter than that of the elephant (15-20 years), the elapsed time required for this tremendous increase in size would be 60,000 yrs. And that is one bedding plane. So from 1 sediment layer the paleontologists would see mouse-sized animals and in the next elephant sized animals. But the evolution would still have been slow from generation to generation.

The thread asks "when did evolution begin?" Darwin answered that. You should read Origin of Species. Evolution begins after the first life appears.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

 

[lucaspa]

Ah, okay. I think I see what you're asking.

Mutations can account for the differences between those species.

That's not sufficient. You need variation + selection. See below. Without selection the mutations remain in only a few individuals and the population does not change.

Mutation is only one source of variation. For sexually reproducing species, recombination generations several times as much variation as mutations. And that includes that humans have 20 mutations per person!

Evolution is simply the better survivors in any generation passing on their genes. all these tiny, yet different changes can yeild very different, yet effective techniques for survival.

That is natural selection. And yes, natural selection is the source of all the designs we see in plants and animals. It is the driver that spreads those favorable mutations through the population. Without selection, each mutation is in only a small percentage (frequency) of individuals in the population and stays at that low frequency. Selection ensures that the variation eventually becomes 100%. Also, selection is cumulative. One change spreads to all the individuals, so the next variation already has the first present. Creationists (particularly IDers) make the mistake in thinking that all the variations have to appear simultaneously in one individual.

Now, IF, this was the explanation of elephants and pine trees we would expect to find evidence in the fossil record and genetic codes... and we do.

Yes, we do. A major piece of evidence supporting evolution (and falsifying creationism) is that the sequences of bases in DNA (the genetic code for proteins) between elephants and pine trees are related by historical connections. They are not independent observations. Of course, if elephants and pine trees were separate, independent creations, then the DNA sequences would be independent. God did not create by creationism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, we do. A major piece of evidence supporting evolution (and falsifying creationism) is that the sequences of bases in DNA (the genetic code for proteins) between elephants and pine trees are related by historical connections. They are not independent observations. Of course, if elephants and pine trees were separate, independent creations, then the DNA sequences would be independent. God did not create by creationism.

What makes you think that God created by separate and independent creations?

 

[lucaspa]

I think maybe you are using a different meaning of the word 'contention' than I meant. I meant contention as a heated disagreement. What I am saying is that Christians get all up in arms over the mere word 'evolution' and its meaning. But the only part of evolution that is disagreeable as a believer in the One Almighty God is that man evolved from animals.

Are we in agreement?

Aphrodite, Biblical literalists "get all up in arms" about evolution. Christians do not.

And yes, for Biblical literalists, the big sticking point is that humans evolved from a previous species. Creationists (Duane Gish for example) are willing to allow huge amounts of evolution as long as humans are specially created. You can see this as Gish tries to define "kind". H. sapiens is the only single species that is a "kind".

"In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a basic kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes amphibians reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each.

Within the mammalian class, duck-billed playtpuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind." Duane T. Gish, The Fossils Say NO!, 1973, pp 34-35.

Notice the nested heirarchy. You can't have a "basic kind" within another "kind". After all, chimpanzees have to be "derived from a single stock". They cannot be in another "single stock" of apes.

But to address the rest of your quote, man was made last, on Day 6, not Day 3. Animals came before God's man, and the fossil record records this as well.

That is in the first creation story in Genesis 1. In the second creation story in Genesis 2, a man -- Dirt -- was made before all the animals. So what makes you focus on Genesis 1 here and ignore Genesis 2?

 

[lucaspa]

What makes you think that God created by separate and independent creations?

I said "A major piece of evidence supporting evolution (and falsifying creationism) is that the sequences of bases in DNA (the genetic code for proteins) between elephants and pine trees are related by historical connections. They arenot independent observations. Of course, if elephants and pine trees were separate, independent creations, then the DNA sequences would be independent."

From context, it is clear that I am stating the position of creationism. Do you think creationism states something else? If so, please provide quotes from major creationists.

Otherwise, please look at the definitions of "creationism" accessible from this page: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=creationism+definition

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is in the first creation story in Genesis 1. In the second creation story in Genesis 2, a man -- Dirt -- was made before all the animals. So what makes you focus on Genesis 1 here and ignore Genesis 2?

Genesis 2 can be interpreted as the Spiritual creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I said "A major piece of evidence supporting evolution (and falsifying creationism) is that the sequences of bases in DNA (the genetic code for proteins) between elephants and pine trees are related by historical connections. They arenot independent observations. Of course, if elephants and pine trees were separate, independent creations, then the DNA sequences would be independent."

From context, it is clear that I am stating the position of creationism. Do you think creationism states something else? If so, please provide quotes from major creationists.

I guess we would have to know what you consider major creationists. What is a major creationist? There are plenty of creationists that agree with evolutionary processes and even common descent. Genesis 1 doesn't state that God created by separate independent creations. Where in Genesis does it state that the life listed was created independently?

 

[justlookinla]

When have I ever boasted? I have merely offered to help you. That is not a boast.

And why are you so afraid to even learn the concept of what scientific evidence is? It seems that the mere concept threatens your faith.

I predict your next post will also be void of evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[justlookinla]

Ah, okay. I think I see what you're asking.

Mutations can account for the differences between those species.

Where is the evidence, based on the scientific method, for such a claim?

It is a trivial fact that all life is constantly receiving small variations into populations via mutations in the DNA. These changes leave small changes in both phenotype and suitability.

Yes, mutations are proven by the scientific method. Not true for random mutations creating both a pine tree and elephant.

Evolution is simply the better survivors in any generation passing on their genes. all these tiny, yet different changes can yeild very different, yet effective techniques for survival.

This isn't offering any evidence, based on the scientific method, for the 'how' of the creation of a pine tree and elephant from a single life form of long ago.

Now, IF, this was the explanation of elephants and pine trees we would expect to find evidence in the fossil record and genetic codes... and we do. That, is the scientific evidence for the evolution of elephants and pine trees... along with the rest of the plants and animals.

You're attempting to change the focus to the argument for a common ancestor. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for the 'how', with evidence based on the scientific method.

 

[Aman777]

Aphrodite, Biblical literalists "get all up in arms" about evolution. Christians do not.

And yes, for Biblical literalists, the big sticking point is that humans evolved from a previous species. Creationists (Duane Gish for example) are willing to allow huge amounts of evolution as long as humans are specially created. You can see this as Gish tries to define "kind". H. sapiens is the only single species that is a "kind".

"In the above discussion, we have defined a basic kind as including all of those variants which have been derived from a single stock. We have cited some examples of varieties which we believe should be included within a single basic kind. We cannot always be sure, however, what constitutes a basic kind. The division into kinds is easier the more the divergence observed. It is obvious, for example, that among invertebrates the protozoa, sponges, jellyfish, worms, snails, trilobites, lobsters, and bees are all different kinds. Among the vertebrates, the fishes amphibians reptiles, birds, and mammals are obviously different basic kinds. Among the reptiles, the turtles, crocodiles, dinosaurs, pterosaurs (flying reptiles), and ichthyosaurs (aquatic reptiles) would be placed in different kinds. Each one of these major groups of reptiles could be further subdivided into the basic kinds within each.

Within the mammalian class, duck-billed playtpuses, opossums, bats, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, dogs, cats, lemurs, monkeys, apes, and men are easily assignable to different basic kinds. Among the apes, the gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, and gorillas would each be included in a different basic kind." Duane T. Gish, The Fossils Say NO!, 1973, pp 34-35.

Notice the nested heirarchy. You can't have a "basic kind" within another "kind". After all, chimpanzees have to be "derived from a single stock". They cannot be in another "single stock" of apes.


That is in the first creation story in Genesis 1. In the second creation story in Genesis 2, a man -- Dirt -- was made before all the animals. So what makes you focus on Genesis 1 here and ignore Genesis 2?

Hello Paul, Long time no see. I thought that by now you would have figured out that there is but ONE story of the Creation. Those who see two are admitting that they cannot understand Genesis. Amen?

In Love,
Aman

 

[lucaspa]

Genesis 2 can be interpreted as the Spiritual creation.

Genesis 1 can be (and should be) interpreted as repudiation of the Babylonian gods. The question remains why you decide Genesis 1 talks about "real" creation but Genesis 2 only about "Spiritual creation". Genesis 2 describes the physical creation of animals and 2 humans. It also talks about the creation of the earth, sun, stars, and planets (heavens). "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens," Of course, it says God made everything that Genesis 1 spreads out over 3 days in a single day. But "heavens and earth" are physical objects, are they not?

Genesis 2:19: "And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; "

So what is the "Spiritual" about that?