Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[klutedavid]

Hello Gene.

Pssst...:

Yes I read the first link, seemed absurd?

Sssshhhhh.........

Here read this.

"This isn't definitive proof, because animals carry many anachronistic genes"

There can never be any proof of anything in science, so why in the article, does it mention, 'definitive proof'. Anyway, the article did not really establish any real link, between gills and the formation of wings. Why would someone think that gills should develop into wings? That seems to be the last place that any appendage should develop.

A very speculative experiment, we need hard evidence in science, not some absurd, well consider this a possibility. Science is not, gee whiz, it looks like it might have happened this way.

That is a case of the authentic clutching of the straws, not even close to a solution, to a very real problem in the ET.

If you lack the fossil evidence, then the observations are missing. If the observations are missing for winged insect evolution, then the question arises. What other evidence is missing?

We may need a good old inquisition to straighten things out.

Sssshhhh.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Gene.

Pssst...:

Yes I read the first link, seemed absurd?

Sssshhhhh.........

Here read this.

"This isn't definitive proof, because animals carry many anachronistic genes"

There can never be any proof of anything in science, so why in the article, does it mention, 'definitive proof'. Anyway, the article did not really establish any real link, between gills and the formation of wings. Why would someone think that gills should develop into wings? That seems to be the last place that any appendage should develop.

A very speculative experiment, we need hard evidence in science, not some absurd, well consider this a possibility. Science is not, gee whiz, it looks like it might have happened this way.

That is a case of the authentic clutching of the straws, not even close to a solution, to a very real problem in the ET.

If you lack the fossil evidence, then the observations are missing. If the observations are missing for winged insect evolution, then the question arises. What other evidence is missing?

We may need a good old inquisition to straighten things out.

Sssshhhh.

Still without a clue.

If you are ever ready to learn people will try to help you here.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Astrophile.

Appreciate your reply.

It is as obvious that 'all species that exist are generated by preceding species' as it is that all individual living things have parents.

Yes, all living things are the genetic copies of their parents.
Life is screaming at us, copies of their parents, not copies of someone else's parents.

Speciation is obvious to you but not to me, I am not a believer.

At present, neither individual living things nor new species come into existence by spontaneous generation.

This is the point of the conjecture, is speciation even possible?

So where did the first members of a species come from?

No observations are available, to make any assertion about the development of life on this planet. This should have been the end of the ridiculous debate. Regardless of the lack of any evidence to indicate the mechanism for the generation of life. We sit around and speculate about the fictional possibilities.

Did they arise by spontaneous generation, without parents?

You will never be able to answer that question, not unless you can develop a time machine.

You would have to discuss this with entomologists and palaeontologists. However, you should notice that there are about 3000 extant species of dragonflies, belonging to 348 genera and eleven families - Dragonfly - Wikipedia . Do you accept that all these families and genera are derived from a single common ancestral species of dragonfly? Also, do you accept that the Upper Carboniferous rocks that contain the oldest fossil dragonflies really were deposited about 325 million years ago?

It is in the end, impossible to accept the statements above, without the degree of certainty attached. I am not a gambler, I prefer a probability of one.

 

[Gene2memE]

Hello Gene.

Pssst...:

Yes I read the first link, seemed absurd?

Sssshhhhh.........

Here read this.

"This isn't definitive proof, because animals carry many anachronistic genes"

You made this statement:

"...there are no recorded observations, of the evolution of winged insects in the fossil record".

In response, I provided links to multiple papers and articles - from a period of better than 40 years - showing fossil evidence of the evolution of winged insects. So, do you stand by that statement? Or are you just going to stick by it and (apparently) keep parroting creationist talking points?

The earliest fossil record of flying insect lineages is poor. Scanty even. This is not in debate. This does not mean there are no recorded observations of the evolution of winged insects however.

A very speculative experiment, we need hard evidence in science, not some absurd, well consider this a possibility. Science is not, gee whiz, it looks like it might have happened this way.

Science is always "gee whiz, it looks like it might have happened this way". It is just with varying degrees of confidence, based on how many lines of available evidence there are, the we can say how likely it is that something may have occurred one way or the other.

Conclusions are tentative and opened to being overturned by better analysis, new thinking or new/better evidence.

This is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Speedwell]

This is the point of the conjecture, is speciation even possible?

It's been observed, both in the lab and in the field.

It is in the end, impossible to accept the statements above, without the degree of certainty attached. I am not a gambler, I prefer a probability of one.

You mean 100% ignorance? You think that's a good thing? Why not at least try to find out?

 

[klutedavid]

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for the reply.

It's been observed, both in the lab and in the field.

Are you sure about this?

Why not at least try to find out?

I did some research on the oldest insect ever found.

Rhyniognatha

The experts believe it may have even had wings. Well I hope not,
how could a four hundred year old fossil insect, be an advanced,
airborne insect? Seems like evolution in reverse. I bothered to do some more research, on the earliest flowering plant ever discovered also.

Controversy Blooms Over Earliest Flower Fossil
A tiny flower pressed between layers of sandstone for more than 160 million years could be the oldest flower fossil ever found, a new study reports. However, not everyone agrees that the fossil represents an actual flower or that it is as old as the study claims. (LiveScience, Becky Oskin, Contributing Writer)

If the first flowering plant found is over two hundred and fifty million years, after the first flying insect. Do insects need flowering plants?

What have we learned so far by doing the research?

Insects don't need flowers, insects were airborne in the beginning. The fossil record tells us everything we need to know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

klute, one example of speciation that we can observe today are some of the ring species. The ensatina salamander of California is a very good example. There are a series of subspecies that can breed with each other, but those on the ends of the ring cannot breed with each other. I am on a tablet right now so I cannot link.

 

[Speedwell]

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for the reply.

Are you sure about this?

I did some research on the oldest insect ever found.

Rhyniognatha

The experts believe it may have even had wings. Well I hope not,
how could a four hundred year old fossil insect, be an advanced,
airborne insect? Seems like evolution in reverse. I bothered to do some more research, on the earliest flowering plant ever discovered also.

Controversy Blooms Over Earliest Flower Fossil
A tiny flower pressed between layers of sandstone for more than 160 million years could be the oldest flower fossil ever found, a new study reports. However, not everyone agrees that the fossil represents an actual flower or that it is as old as the study claims. (LiveScience, Becky Oskin, Contributing Writer)

If the first flowering plant found is over two hundred and fifty million years, after the first flying insect. Do insects need flowering plants?

What have we learned so far by doing the research?

Insects don't need flowers, insects were airborne in the beginning. The fossil record tells us everything we need to know.

You certainly voice some strange notions about what the fossil record tells us. But I suppose it pleases you to believe that the theory of evolution is silly and unfounded, though you haven't said why.

 

[Strathos]

Bible doctrine.
The sanctuary law given to Moses dictated by GOD required a blood sacrifice that pointed forward to the Cross

Able offered a blood sacrifice
Genesis
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Hebrews 13:8
Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

Always been a Blood Sacrifice required for sin

Nothing new under the sun

Jesus was the final sacrifice and He abolished the use of animal sacrifice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Jesus was the final sacrifice and He abolished the use of animal sacrifice.

Where did he ever make that claim?

Why would animal sacrifice ever have been a good thing in the first place?

 

[AV1611VET]

Where did he ever make that claim?

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

Why would animal sacrifice ever have been a good thing in the first place?

On the mundane level, they provided food for the priests, who weren't given their own land to farm; but lived to serve in the Temple all their lives.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Speedwell.

Thanks for the reply.

Are you sure about this?

I did some research on the oldest insect ever found.

Doing a Google search is not doing research. And I do not see a link in the cut and paste that you did below. It is usually a good idea to link your claims to the original sources if you want anyone to take you seriously. That way they can see that you did not quote out of context and whether or not you used a valid source.

Rhyniognatha

The experts believe it may have even had wings. Well I hope not,
how could a four hundred year old fossil insect, be an advanced,
airborne insect? Seems like evolution in reverse. I bothered to do some more research, on the earliest flowering plant ever discovered also.

Who says that it was advanced? You are still not asking the right questions and jumping to conclusions. It is fine to ask questions, but when your questions show that you not only don't understand the topic, but seem to be resisting learning about the topic it is very hard to help you.

Controversy Blooms Over Earliest Flower Fossil
A tiny flower pressed between layers of sandstone for more than 160 million years could be the oldest flower fossil ever found, a new study reports. However, not everyone agrees that the fossil represents an actual flower or that it is as old as the study claims. (LiveScience, Becky Oskin, Contributing Writer)

If the first flowering plant found is over two hundred and fifty million years, after the first flying insect. Do insects need flowering plants?

Some do today, some don't. Symbiosis evolves along with the species involved. Early plants did not need insects, but once angiosperms evolved they quickly began to develop a symbiosis with several insect species.

What have we learned so far by doing the research?

Insects don't need flowers, insects were airborne in the beginning. The fossil record tells us everything we need to know.

No, you did not learn that insects were airborne in the beginning. Once again you jumped to a faulty conclusion. And those articles told you that insect fossils are very rare. Did you ever stop to think about that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hebrews 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

So Jesus never said that. Thanks for the clarification. All you have is a letter that was probably not even written by Paul:

Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia

On the mundane level, they fed the priests, who weren't given their own land to farm; but lived to serve in the Temple all their lives.

I thought that someone had to benefit from those barbecues. Make it sound mandatory and people will sometimes do almost anything.

 

[AV1611VET]

So Jesus never said that. Thanks for the clarification. All you have is a letter that was probably not even written by Paul:

Epistle to the Hebrews - Wikipedia



I thought that someone had to benefit from those barbecues. Make it sound mandatory and people will sometimes do almost anything.

Anything else we can help you with?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oops, I almost forgot the links that I mentioned in a prior post of mine. Here is one on the ensatina salamander:

A closer look at a classic ring species: The work of Tom Devitt

By the time you get to the southern end and the two different groups meet again they can no longer breed with each other. By the reproduction definition of species that makes them different species.

croceater cannot breed with eschscholtzii.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anything else we can help you with?

Nothing right now. But thanks for refuting the earlier claim of Strathos.

 

[klutedavid]

You certainly voice some strange notions about what the fossil record tells us. But I suppose it pleases you to believe that the theory of evolution is silly and unfounded, though you haven't said why.

Hello Speedwell.

Bees were around 160 million years before flowering plants.

That is according to the latest fossil discoveries, just trying to keep you up to date.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hello Speedwell.

Bees were around 160 million years before flowering plants.

That is according to the latest fossil discoveries, just trying to keep you up to date.

Where do you get that claim from? You need a valid link.

 

[klutedavid]

Oops, I almost forgot the links that I mentioned in a prior post of mine. Here is one on the ensatina salamander:

A closer look at a classic ring species: The work of Tom Devitt

By the time you get to the southern end and the two different groups meet again they can no longer breed with each other. By the reproduction definition of species that makes them different species.

croceater cannot breed with eschscholtzii.

Hello Zone.

They cannot breed?

Do you mean the offspring are sterile?

 

[klutedavid]

Where do you get that claim from? You need a valid link.

Hello Zone.

I just read the article, will need to fetch it.