Is Darwin's Theory of Evolution True? Part 4.1

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Your series of threads on evolution is closing in on ten thousand posts, and you still use loose language like evolution “knows” or “has everything prepared.” Is it that difficult to understand that evolution does not know, think, predict, plan, or prepare? We’re getting nowhere. But keep it up.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
Q. What does the first inkling of a change in species look like?

A. A single mutation in a single organism makes its DNA slightly different from all the others. Maybe it is a gene for an enzyme which makes its fur curly.
Click to expand...
You’re not getting what I’m saying. let’s say hypothetically sheep are the next candidate for evolution.The new species will be red sheep with three horns.The very first transitional stage/ step is a sheep that is slightly pink with a tiny little bump on its head.How is this transitional form of sheep going to cause the demise/ die out of the population of regular white sheep?
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
So, evolution already knows what the future climate will be, and has everything prepared beforehand? 🤔
Click to expand...
No, of course not. Maybe the weather actually gets hotter, and the curly-haired sheep fail to breed at all. The gene is not passed on, and some other gene, say for water retention or solar reflectivity gets used instead. There’s plenty of scope for useful mutations, but if there aren’t any around, then the species goes extinct.
 
RandomAlias said:
Your series of threads on evolution is closing in on ten thousand posts, and you still use loose language like evolution “knows” or “has everything prepared.” Is it that difficult to understand that evolution does not know, think, predict, plan, or prepare? We’re getting nowhere. But keep it up.
Click to expand...
Yet, it can do everything… that’s the baffling part.
 
Techno2000 said:
You’re not getting what I’m saying. let’s say hypothetically sheep are the next candidate for evolution.The new species will be red sheep with three horns.The very first transitional stage/ step is a sheep that is slightly pink with a tiny little bump on its head.How is this transitional form of sheep going to cause the demise/ die out of the population of regular white sheep?
Click to expand...
Ha ha! Love it. A little while ago I checked out who the OP was on the first Is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution True? thread. Yes, no lesser mortal than yourself. And now, ten thousand generations later, you haven’t evolved at all. No wonder you’re becoming extinct!
 
buffalo said:
We are applying solid science to these experiments. The question - is there a step wise process in which proteins and genes can evolve? If so is it within the limits of evolution or outside the limits. Numerous, successive and slight modifications…

Here is one:

When Theory and Experiment Collide
Click to expand...
Ha ha! Another one bites the dust. This article debunking Evolution is from a Creationist website, quoting another Creationist website as its authority, Now come on, what would you think if I quoted Richard Dawkins debunking Creationism?
 
It really can do everything. Evolution is God’s second-most awesome invention, right after abiogenesis. Sheer genius, to bring forth order from disorder!
 
RandomAlias said:
It really can do everything. Evolution is God’s second-most awesome invention, right after abiogenesis. Sheer genius, to bring forth order from disorder!
Click to expand...
So, you really believe that Adam and Eve were carried in the wombs of Soulless animal creatures ?
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
Techno2000:
You’re not getting what I’m saying. let’s say hypothetically sheep are the next candidate for evolution.The new species will be red sheep with three horns.The very first transitional stage/ step is a sheep that is slightly pink with a tiny little bump on its head.How is this transitional form of sheep going to cause the demise/ die out of the population of regular white sheep?
Click to expand...
Ha ha! Love it. A little while ago I checked out who the OP was on the first Is Darwin’s Theory of Evolution True? thread. Yes, no lesser mortal than yourself. And now, ten thousand generations later, you haven’t evolved at all. No wonder you’re becoming extinct!
Click to expand...
Just answer the question… thanks. 😄
 
Hugh_Farey said:
40.png
RandomAlias:
It really can do everything. Evolution is God’s second-most awesome invention, right after abiogenesis. Sheer genius, to bring forth order from disorder!
Click to expand...
Yes! You’ve got it. Why can’t anybody else?
Click to expand...
But, evolution would work just the same without there being a God… right ?
 
Yeah, there’s an important difference in how ID came to be, and how evolution came to be. Evolution wasn’t created for any purpose other than explaining Darwin’s observations about animals.

ID was quite specifically created to beg the question: “We already know that God made everything. . . so how can we word that belief as scientific-seeming as we can?”

The problem here is that the latter isn’t a scientific position at all. It’s not a viable contender, on any level, with the Theory of Evolution, because it has not entered the arena in the way that scientific theories must: starting with an open mind and an open eye.
 
Hugh_Farey said:
The embryos of extant birds and reptiles can be studied under microscopes.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your point here - compare the zygote of a human with, say, the zygote of a chimp, and one observes that they are identical! Based on this observation, the only rational conclusive one can come to is that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. This is how evolution science works … and it’s a beautiful thing.
The fossil record shows that there was an extensive scaly reptile fauna before the appearance of feathers, and that the earliest animals with feathers resembled some of them. The earliest identifiable feathers are long thin tubules. Series of later fossil animals can be arranged in chronological order increasingly to resemble modern birds, and series of later fossil feathers can be arranged in chronological order increasingly to resemble modern feathers
Click to expand...
Wishful thinking, speculation and fantasy may appeal to the mind of the common man, but they are worthless to science.
If you find any of this gibberish, would you be so good as to point out whereabouts exactly gives rise to your misapprehension?
Click to expand...
Your pseudo-scientific explanations are indeed gibberish, because none of your claims can be tested. Therefore all you’re doing is telling a worthless story … that may contain some truth or may be complete nonsense. Talk, talk, talk and yet more talk; pointless hypotheses piled on other pointless hypotheses - that’s all evolution science ever does. Saying “Evolution did it” advances science no more than saying “God did it”.
 
Last edited:
Techno2000 said:
Just answer the question… thanks. 😄
Click to expand...
But the question was so bonkers it’s difficult to know where to start. There aren’t any ‘candidates for evolution’. Any group of organisms whose environment is changing may have the genetic propensity for change. Or not. And none of them set off to become any particular different shape, they either fit the conditions of their environment or they don’t, in which case they won’t reproduce.

However, in the event that a sheep environment existed in which having pink horns gave them reproductive dominance, that’s how the non-pink sheep would die out. The pink horns were able to hide in pools of cherry custard, while the others were more conspicuous, and more likely to be eaten by the giant sheep-tiger. So the pink horns had more babies, and the smooth whites had fewer. And thus they slowly dwindled in number until the last one was eaten, and the giant sheep-tiger either had to evolve to digest horns or it would die out itself…
Techno2000 said:
But, evolution would work just the same without there being a God… right ?
Click to expand...
No, not at all, any more than a cartoon strip draws itself.
 
That’s right.

Nothing is a “definitive proof of God.” That’s why it’s called faith and not simply called “paying attention.” However, science has God-sized holes. Where did the Big Bang come from? Why is there such a thing as mind in a supposedly material reality?

That being said, I’m not going to pray if I want to learn how to build a bridge properly-- we know the physical rules. And we know how evolution has worked, as well. There’s so much evidence for it that you really do have to stick your head in the sand to avoid it. You have to look at the best science available, much done by Christians.
-Chemical dating? Nah. . . maybe the halflife of isotopes was different 5,000 years ago.
-Fossils show patterns of similarities and differences? Nah. . . God was being efficient by giving whales finger bones
-Ligers, zorses, etc.? Nah. . . they’re all the same, they’ve just lost the ability to successfully reproduce with each other

At what point do you start feeling embarrassed to say all this stuff, and start looking for another angle?
 
Last edited:
benjamin1973 said:
ID was quite specifically created to beg the question: “We already know that God made everything. . . so how can we word that belief as scientific-seeming as we can?”

The problem here is that the latter isn’t a scientific position at all. It’s not a viable contender, on any level, with the Theory of Evolution, because it has not entered the arena in the way that scientific theories must: starting with an open mind and an open eye.
Click to expand...
I can agree with you on that point.
 
Last edited:
Glark said:
Wishful thinking, speculation and fantasy may appeal to the mind of the common man, but they are worthless to science.
Click to expand...
I see you’ve been around since Version 1 as well, and still learnt nothing. Evolution is a story - what’s wrong with that? It fits thousands of observations really well. That’s all it needs to do; that’s what science is.
 
PetraG said:
OK…explain the data competently. We’re listening.
Click to expand...
What data? Do you mean the fossil record? I have never studied the entire fossil record and I don’t have a Ph.d in paleontology - so I cannot explain something I have no knowledge of. When it comes to any “data” connected to Origins science (such as the fossil record*), I can’t rely on the scientists involved to provide it, as I don’t trust them to be honest and objective. The truth is not in them. So if their “data” can’t be trusted, how can their interpretations of the “data” be trusted?

(* S.J. Gould admitted that paleontologists keep secrets, which vindicates my distrust of them - “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms” … “The extreme rarity of transitional forms (between the major goups) in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.”)

So I’m happy to accept a literal interpretation of the Genesis account, as I have no data that contradicts it. Besides that, accepting the theory of evolution serves no practical purpose, as it is completely useless and irrelevant to science or any other form of reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top