Is Darwin's Theory Of Evolution True?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Techno2000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
See Vouthon’s post above.

Yes, of course gravity and biodiversity are different things. We weren’t talking about the difference between gravity and biodiversity. We were talking about how a prediction made by a historical science could be tested without a laboratory experiment.
 
Last edited:
mhmtas63 said:
That six days point phases through which universe and world get formed. Otherwise there are always acting or for our topic “act of evolution”. For instance silkworm evolves. What you do not see is that it cannot be by unconscious forces and laws. Can you indicate a force or a law as physical presence. For instance could you show “gravity”. What gravity consist of? Or could you show growing up programe as force and law? I mean which force and law make alives so wonderful and very beautiful? Do gravity or four basic forces have mind? That forces affect in one side. So how could unconscious forces build up so complicated even miraculous (because human cannot do) bodies? Just think cells and other organs if you are a bit aware of biology and chemistry. How could mindless forces know all sciences? That is the point of faith. Otherwise faith is not a math formula to prove.
Click to expand...
I wrote that for rossum! (In Glark’s post)
 
Last edited:
Vouthon said:
an insect with a proboscis that would be able to get “in there” and retrieve the deeply-hidden nectar.
Click to expand...
How did random mutations know that such an insect would come along to get its nectar ?
 
Provide proof that Animals today are different compared to animals existing millions of years ago? Are you serious?
 
Last edited:
You are as correct as you are picky. Let me qualify, then.

As you are no doubt aware, we “create” an artificial environment in a lab with two related variables. We test our hypothesis by manipulating one (the independent) and seeing what happens to the other (the dependent). What happens follows the laws of nature. Where we cannot do this because things are too large, we find situations that occur naturally such as in the examples you provide.

Creating life and matter should be possible in a lab because we are not looking into what happens in huge expanses of space. To create matter seems unfeasible, impossible given that it is a fundamental principle that it cannot be created, although transformed from one state to another. To believe that we can create life is equally untenable, but that is a basic tenet of materialism. We cannot do it, and do not observe it happening spontaneously in nature.

What we do see is that life brings forth life. What is life is known through love and reason. Instinctively, life forms are treated as something we want to possess or that want to possess us. A living being is either food, something to have sex with, or something to stay away from. Materialism is a rational relationship with things other, that depletes them of their individual existence in themselves. The belief is not scientific, but utilizes science as a justification.

I’m not sure what point you were trying to make, but these are some thoughts that came to mind.
 
IWantGod said:
Provide proof that Animals today are different compared to animals existing millions of years ago? Are you serious?
Click to expand...
That’s not what I was asking. Just to review, let’s recall that the phenotype reflects the genotype. If there are changes in the appearance, it can be assumed that a cause might be in the genetic make-up of the organism. There would likely be significant differences in the DNA of animals then and now - chicken vs T-Rex. If during the comings and goings of living forms we observe more of some and fewer of others, one explanation is that the genetics have changed. Alternatively, the DNA may be very similar in appearance, but the expression of one trait is favoured over another. We try to understand how these changes in genetic structure have occurred. Since you did not specify, I assume you believe they are different because of spontaneous mutations. I asked you to prove it.

I believe that they were moulded by the word of God in various ways. Some that I come up with is through their dreams. As we might imagine a lover, whom we eventually find because we have not settled for less, God guided birds to become peacocks. Just like when we think, we are changing the polarity of neuronal action potentials and releasing neurotransmitters into synapses, God as a universal mind may guide His creation, in addition to providing its infinite forms of being, possessing their particular nature.

You may wish to clarify what you mean when you use the term mutation. As it is commonly understood in science, it means change purely resulting from material influences, such as viruses, radiation, simple noise that exists in any system, or toxins. Is that what you think? That all this diversity came about as a random material phenomenon, with no final cause?
 
Last edited:
The point I was trying to make is that you don’t have to “do” something in the sense Glark suggested (“going into a laboratory and making life arise”) in order to test a hypothesis. As for creating life in the lab, you possibly are not looking at vast amounts of space (although you may be, depending how much of a universe you need in this hypothetical theory of abiogenesis we are discussing) but you may be looking at vast amounts of time. Same effect.
 
Last edited:
PickyPicky said:
you possibly are not looking at vast amounts of space (although you may be, depending how much of a universe you need in this hypothetical theory of abiogenesis we are discussing) but you may be looking at vast amounts of time. Same effect.
Click to expand...
Chemical reactions occur in the cell because of enzymes, catalysts that bring atoms and molecules together. The theory would be that they would come together anyway given sufficient time. When we look at the complexity of all that goes on in a living organism, it is not convincing. The idea feels like a slight of hand - dividing both sides of an equation by zero to demonstrate that two unequal things are identical.

We haven’t yet, and it is likely impossible, but perhaps if we found life elsewhere in the universe, it might lend some support to a theory of abiogenesis.

I have my own ideas on how it all happened, but there are too many lacunae in my understanding to get into it with any degree of confidence.
 
Last edited:
Evolutionism can explain everything. They are still wings.

Our grand designer could design anything that is logically possible. A human designer can design anything he wants limited by the frame of reference we are in.
 
Last edited:
The comparison is like saying bees know what flowers are, that they know how to build honeycombs and they can communicate the location of food sources - all based on a prediction? Definitely not.

“Figure-eight-shaped waggle dance of the honeybee (Apis mellifera). A waggle run oriented 45° to the right of ‘up’ on the vertical comb (A) indicates a food source 45° to the right of the direction of the sun outside the hive (B).”

“Brightly–colored flowers that are tubular hold the most nectar, and are particularly attractive to hummingbirds.”

It’s just not convincing.
 
The implications of this are astounding and not good for Darwinism

From Nature Magazine:

The recent increase in genomic data is revealing an unexpected perspective of gene loss as a pervasive source of genetic variation that can cause adaptive phenotypic diversity. This novel perspective of gene loss is raising new fundamental questions. How relevant has gene loss been in the divergence of phyla? How do genes change from being essential to dispensable and finally to being lost? Is gene loss mostly neutral, or can it be an effective way of adaptation? These questions are addressed, and insights are discussed from genomic studies of gene loss in populations and their relevance in evolutionary biology and biomedicine. Evolution by gene loss | Nature Reviews Genetics

Speciation caused by gene loss and loss of function? Oh my!
 
Last edited:
He saw a flower and predicted there would be a pollinator?

That’s pretty weak as “proof” of evolution.
 
It’s not presented as “a proof”. It is one of many predictions tested and found to be valid. Many, many predictions.
 
Not much of a prediction. It requires nothing about evolution to make that prediction. Anyone with a knowledge of cross-pollination could make the same prediction, and probably did.
 
Well, certainly a creationist could make the same prediction, in my opinion. But that’s not the point. It shows that predictions can be made, and can be found to be true or false, without “going into a lab and creating life”.
 
That’s not a prediction at all. Other insects are also pollinators, like ants.
 
Good grief, of course it is a prediction. How valuable a prediction it is, well that’s another matter. Yes, I believe there are indeed ants.
 
ChunkMonk said:
Not much of a prediction. It requires nothing about evolution to make that prediction. Anyone with a knowledge of cross-pollination could make the same prediction, and probably did.
Click to expand...
Atheists have great faith in anything Darwin says.
 
They have the real blind faith. Their god is the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) - their religion is called evolutionism.
 
Debate seems to have ended hereabouts, and been replaced by puerile attempts at wit. CAF used to be more interesting than this. Goodnight all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top