Evolution fact or fiction?

[kedge]

Here read about the apple. It's a good article. I guess the modern apple's wild ancestor still exists in Asia. Pretty cool. What I meant was there is no "absolute" apple. No archetypal apple. No archetypal rabbit. They have different size ears and tails and very in color and shape and size...there is no "ideal" rabbit. They are just another animals, and they'll likely be gone or have turned into something quite different in a few more million years. The same is for the apple. We're artificially select for sweeter tasting apples, no doubt. Before people, insects did a lot of the selection for us. Does this really not make sense? It seems so clear and obvious to me... I think maybe you just don't understand how evolution works. Slow gradual changes make for very different fruit, in some cases, fruit came from plants that did not make fruit at all. Farmers have done amazing things to the plants. Have you seen the wild ancestors of Banana's? Like apples, banana's wouldn't exist if it wasn't for us cultivating them. "Apple" would have meant something very different to people thousands of years ago. The trees just did not make the same fruit as we have today.

Same old same old, i'm off for a cuppa and a bite to eat, you have nothing, millions of years of evolution is based on assumptions, come back when you have got hard factual evidence and not assumptions, it is always the same old same old debates, it is boring, evolution has nothing and can't prove any of it. I have shown you an evolutionary dilemma an impossible case scenario and you just go on and on in your ignorance. I'm done with you fools. Did I say i'm off now for a brew and a bite to eat?

 

[royalscot]

There is nothing in this forum topic that contradicts what you said

Life is DNA -

if there is no contradiction, how can you say life is DNA. when the question asked,should be, who created or made the DNA etc lol

and for the record DNA was discovered ,after they knew the theory, of there being a god or maker.

1. Crick
   
   
   
   DNA was first identified and isolated byFriedrich Miescher in 1869 at the University of Tübingen, a substance he called nuclein, and the double helix structure of DNA was first discovered in 1953 by Watson and Crick at the University of Cambridge, using experimental data collected by Rosalind Franklin and Maurice ...etc
   
   
   
   

 

[kedge]

First off I would like to say that all too often the evolution v creation debate turns into pointless arguments that can lead to hatred and unfavourable conditions to health or well-being, frustration. If someone chooses to believe that the evidence points to evolution then that is their choice, forcing a belief on anyone is never welcome which i'm sure you agree with. Many times I have asked scientists or someone who believes in evolution or even an atheist a direct question about something and all too often I never get a direct answer to my direct question, you see if someone states that evolution is fact then first of all I need to ask what their definition of evolution is and then to get direct to the point of their facts. Kisses1990 if I have said something unfavourable then I shall take this opportunity to apologise and ask that you pardon my faults, I am imperfect incomplete and susceptible to error of speach or expression.

Of course they are still fruit flies. We shouldn't expect fruit flies to be anything but fruit flies. If a certain population of fruit fly diverged enough to be so staggeringly different, then we would have to cease calling them fruit flies. Fruit flies will always be fruit flies.... If they are not fruit flies, then they are no longer fruit flies and can't go by that name.

Well yes but the the point is that the scientific experiments and research done on the fruit flies showed that one type of creature can not evolve into another completely different type, a variation perhaps yes.

"polar bears" a separate species of bear altogether, not created independently by God.

It's a variation of the bear kind, most Christians would say that God allowed for variation of a kind, this does not prove anything other than variation of a kind which is not denied.

All you have to do is extend what I just told you about a single, or in some cases, a few mutations, and you can get hugely different creatures.

But there is no way to prove these events actually took place, one would have to assume it happened.

Now here is where your question seems to change from evolution to abiogenesis.

Which question was that? life can only come from preexisting life so abiogenesis has been disproven beyond any doubt, it is in the trash can where it belongs that theory is dead in the water.

I don't know where the first living replicating cell came from. I believe God made it.

So you believe God caused evolution? you see I believe that creation and evolution are incompatible with each other, I see no harmony with this type of worldview, but this depends if you believe the Bible to be a true account of origins.

But all I'll say is that I'm absolutely convinced that evolution is true and that all animals are related by a common ancestry.

You see I am the complete opposite of what you see, what I observe is common components and not necessarily common ancestory.

Evolution ONLY deals with once you first have life, how do you get such a variety of life. Evolution will not explain how life originated, nor will it attempt to.

Actually it does, what do you think the big bang theory is all about? evolution encompasses ideas and evidence for origins.

But evolution is not an origins story of life. It's an origin story of species, hence Darwins title, On The Origin of Species.

I beg to differ on this and there is ample evidence to show that many evolutionists claim the universe and everything within it came about all by itself and from nothing.

Reptiles lay eggs. Fish lay eggs. They are slightly different, but they are eggs. You can actually see different spots of egg evolution in modern animals for an idea of how it happened in the past.

But there is no proof whatsoever nor any scientific experiments that prove that a fish egg can give rise to a chicken egg, the evolution bit is a theory and not proven as fact.

not unlike the evolution of the eye. Current living animals represent a very good indication of the stages and processes that took a makeshift eye and transformed it into what we have here.

There are twenty different types of eyes, did you know that? you can research that if you like?. Again, the evolution bit is based upon assumptions and not fact.

I imagine a similar answer for the question of apple trees. The seed came first. No tree is going to magically poof into existence. It needs a seed to grow. The seed we are talking about may not be an apple seed as we know it.

So what you are saying is that another type of seed can give rise to an apple seed?, I'm going to need experimetal evidence for that claim.

There never was a "first apple tree" or a "first apple seed".

If there was no apple seed then again where did the apple seed come from? all scientific experiments and even common sense will show you that an apple seed can only come from within the apple and this can be proven as fact. Your evolution claims can only be assumed, therefore unproven claims.

Because every parent gives birth to an animal or plant that is the same species of itself. It's slight modification and mutation over generations that build up to copious changes. Again, there was no first apple seed. And there was no first person, either. We are all the same species of our parents. But if you could go back in time, you'd see an unbroken chain of survivors. Not a single one of you, or I, or the apple tree's direct line of ancestors ever died before giving birth. We are all miracles 4.55 billion years in the making!

All conjecture, inconclusive evidence, evolution is absolute assumptions.

On a last note, Apple trees are of course very different now than what our ancestors had. They probably barely resembled an apple we would eat now. Through cultivation and hybridization, we've evolved this to be the tasty fruit we enjoy now. It wasn't always like that. It was surely very bitter at one point.

Again you have said much but proven very little as fact.

 

[BeyondET]

his a hungry little guy they have multicolor skins and a skeletal made from calcium carbonate.
One of the most unusual corals is Adelopora pseudothyron which is a stylasterid coral [also known as lace corals] that has tiny (less than 1 millimeter) hinged opercula that cover the tube in which the feeding polyp is located. In most corals there are no moving skeletal parts,so this is a real exception.

 

[Tintin]

I know that, I'm asking Kisses1990 the question .

Oh, sorry, mate. I apologise.

 

[alexmurphy]

First off I would like to say that all too often the evolution v creation debate turns into pointless arguments that can lead to hatred and unfavourable conditions to health or well-being, frustration. If someone chooses to believe that the evidence points to evolution then that is their choice, forcing a belief on anyone is never welcome which i'm sure you agree with. Many times I have asked scientists or someone who believes in evolution or even an atheist a direct question about something and all too often I never get a direct answer to my direct question, you see if someone states that evolution is fact then first of all I need to ask what their definition of evolution is and then to get direct to the point of their facts. Kisses1990 if I have said something unfavourable then I shall take this opportunity to apologise and ask that you pardon my faults, I am imperfect incomplete and susceptible to error of speach or expression.



Well yes but the the point is that the scientific experiments and research done on the fruit flies showed that one type of creature can not evolve into another completely different type, a variation perhaps yes.

It's a variation of the bear kind, most Christians would say that God allowed for variation of a kind, this does not prove anything other than variation of a kind which is not denied.



But there is no way to prove these events actually took place, one would have to assume it happened.

Which question was that? life can only come from preexisting life so abiogenesis has been disproven beyond any doubt, it is in the trash can where it belongs that theory is dead in the water.

So you believe God caused evolution? you see I believe that creation and evolution are incompatible with each other, I see no harmony with this type of worldview, but this depends if you believe the Bible to be a true account of origins.


You see I am the complete opposite of what you see, what I observe is common components and not necessarily common ancestory.

Actually it does, what do you think the big bang theory is all about? evolution encompasses ideas and evidence for origins.

I beg to differ on this and there is ample evidence to show that many evolutionists claim the universe and everything within it came about all by itself and from nothing.

But there is no proof whatsoever nor any scientific experiments that prove that a fish egg can give rise to a chicken egg, the evolution bit is a theory and not proven as fact.



There are twenty different types of eyes, did you know that? you can research that if you like?. Again, the evolution bit is based upon assumptions and not fact.

So what you are saying is that another type of seed can give rise to an apple seed?, I'm going to need experimetal evidence for that claim.


If there was no apple seed then again where did the apple seed come from? all scientific experiments and even common sense will show you that an apple seed can only come from within the apple and this can be proven as fact. Your evolution claims can only be assumed, therefore unproven claims.


All conjecture, inconclusive evidence, evolution is absolute assumptions.

Again you have said much but proven very little as fact.

Of course they are still fruit flies. We shouldn't expect fruit flies to be anything but fruit flies. If a certain population of fruit fly diverged enough to be so staggeringly different, then we would have to cease calling them fruit flies. Fruit flies will always be fruit flies.... If they are not fruit flies, then they are no longer fruit flies and can't go by that name...

I'm not sure that I believe that MOST mutations are bad. Every single one of us has a ton of mutations inside of them right now as we speak. There are lots and lots of bad mutations of course, but I think many are also neutral. But never mind the bad or neutral ones. They really don't matter and aren't the point. It's the good mutations that give a selective advantage that matters. Think bears for example. A mutation affected the pigment of a bear living in a snowy area and all of a sudden it had a big advantage over it's peers. It was more likely to blend in with the background and camouflage itself and thus not be spotted by animals it would eat and kill giving it a huge selective advantage. It was more likely to live long enough to pass on it's genes (which is all that matters in evolution) than it's alternative friends. After many generations, the white fur mutation become a staple and now we have "polar bears" a separate species of bear altogether, not created independently by God. Go back to brown or black bears and you can find a point where a lineage split as well and it has vastly different looking animals as it's closest living cousins. This is the tree of life. Many branches, many dead ends where extinctions happened.

All you have to do is extend what I just told you about a single, or in some cases, a few mutations, and you can get hugely different creatures. With enough time (though it can happen quite fast), you'll get all the species you see today at the zoo. Lions and tigers are close cousins just as we are close cousins of chimps and bonobos.

Now here is where your question seems to change from evolution to abiogenesis. I don't know where the first living replicating cell came from. I believe God made it. If you ask some atheist biochemistry students, they might tell you that God is not needed and chemical processes led to the first living replicating cell. If you buy that answer (I don't), and say God did not create life, but rather, chemicals did, the next logical question is where did the chemicals come from? If you go to physics students, they will tell you that minerals and the elements and everything on a periodic table came from the Big Bang. So where did the Big Bang come from? They will go on and mention something about multiverse and possibly say they don't know. Now, I'm waaaay out of my league here. But all I'll say is that I'm absolutely convinced that evolution is true and that all animals are related by a common ancestry. I don't know what happened before that. I'm perfectly fine believing God started life. Abiogenesis is NOT an evolution question. Evolution ONLY deals with once you first have life, how do you get such a variety of life. Evolution will not explain how life originated, nor will it attempt to. The furthest back evolution can probably take you is around the EndoSymbiotic Theory of the origin of Eukaryotes. I've just started reading about this myself and can't say much about it. But evolution is not an origins story of life. It's an origin story of species, hence Darwins title, On The Origin of Species (though much of the book he wasn't exactly talking about that and he was also totally wrong about a few things like genetic information)

To get to your apple question, it's kind of a "what came first, the chicken or the egg?" type question, right? That's the crux of it anyway. Seems like a trick question. It's not, and I fully expect a great answer if I took this question to my teachers. I do know that the egg came before the chicken. Reptiles lay eggs. Fish lay eggs. They are slightly different, but they are eggs. You can actually see different spots of egg evolution in modern animals for an idea of how it happened in the past, not unlike the evolution of the eye. Current living animals represent a very good indication of the stages and processes that took a makeshift eye and transformed it into what we have here. I imagine a similar answer for the question of apple trees. The seed came first. No tree is going to magically poof into existence. It needs a seed to grow. The seed we are talking about may not be an apple seed as we know it. And when planted, it may grow something that looks very different from an apple tree. But it was this ongoing process, that evolved all plants and animals. There never was a "first apple tree" or a "first apple seed". Because every parent gives birth to an animal or plant that is the same species of itself. It's slight modification and mutation over generations that build up to copious changes. Again, there was no first apple seed. And there was no first person, either. We are all the same species of our parents. But if you could go back in time, you'd see an unbroken chain of survivors. Not a single one of you, or I, or the apple tree's direct line of ancestors ever died before giving birth. We are all miracles 4.55 billion years in the making!

On a last note, Apple trees are of course very different now than what our ancestors had. They probably barely resembled an apple we would eat now. Through cultivation and hybridization, we've evolved this to be the tasty fruit we enjoy now. It wasn't always like that. It was surely very bitter at one point. We are lucky to be alive right now.

Then we agree. No believer denies species adapting to changes & developing new distinct features. But the only disagreement is on the origin of plants, humans, micro organisms, humans etc. We can agree to disagree here as views on both can't be scientifically proven. Both need belief.

 

[Vdp]

Fiction.

God clearly tells us He created everything. To teach Evolution is to say God is a liar.

 

[Marcelo]

At age 12 I was in a school run by catholic priests and Father Teodoro, a quite rude person, was the religion teacher. He was telling us that we were created by God when one of my classmates raised his hand and said: "Father, we came from monkeys". Father Teodoro retorted: "You certainly came from monkeys, but we came from God".

 

[BeyondET]

Fiction.

God clearly tells us He created everything. To teach Evolution is to say God is a liar.

Dried up coral on the shore line to dust on the ground isn't evolution. Can God create Evo for other creations a lie like plants and animals other things huh...

Look at the human baby Embryo to a foot long at birth that grows into a adult six feet tall to about 32 or so of age then ages into a human that is elderly with shrinking bones and all not looking nothing like 1 year old. simply a life cycle clearly but come on we don't look nothing like when we are born surely this isn't what Adam went through birth like us humans today. Is this today adaptation or what? On Evolution it's a word just because people don't get the correct theory or knowledge of pathways of it or is not,, doesn't mean anything really we evolve from a embryo to a full grown person everything is being born today that way. A chicken goes from soup in a shell to a chicken what is that. Some call it creation some call it adaptation some call it evolution. These words are words to try and explain something about how and what is the process but no person really knows the sciences behind it fully.

 

[BeyondET]

What is that rib made out of calcium carbonate.

 

[kedge]

Then we agree. No believer denies species adapting to changes & developing new distinct features.

Well, that would depend on what distinct new features?, for example, I don't believe (nor is there any scientific proof) that a lizard can change it's features and develop feathers for adaptation and survival, and the same can be said for bacteria changing/adapting & developing new features that can turn it into a human being over millions of years.

But the only disagreement is on the origin of plants, humans, micro organisms, humans etc.

I believe the cause of our know universe and every natural phenomena within it was by a Supreme Intelligent Purposeful Designer like the one made known in the Holy Bible.

We can agree to disagree here as views on both can't be scientifically proven.

Actually, I can prove all day long that apple seeds can only come from within the apple, I can prove all day long that human beings can only come from human beings and I can do all of this using the trusted scientific method. Using the trusted scientific method can you prove that apple seeds evolved from other plant life? can you prove that human beings evolved from a sub-species?. The scientific method, observation, repeatability, testability, falsification. I can observe the apple seed, I can test the apple seed, I can repeat those tests over and over and over until I can prove or establish it as an absolute fact that apple seeds can only come from within the apple. Of course I am always willing to see what others have proven as fact.

Both need belief.

True, but I and others can go one step further proving many things (maybe not all things) with the scientific method. Very simple.

 

[Kisses1990]

I'd say you're 100% wrong and humans did indeed come from other species. Apples too, came from other species. I gave you the wikipedia link on the ancestral wild species of what we now call "apple trees'. They weren't always as you see and eat them today. Humans very likely came from Australopithecus and Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus.. There is strong evidence for this...

 

[kedge]

I'd say you're 100% wrong and humans did indeed come from other species.

But no person or persons can prove this using the scientific method, it appears impossible, therefore it can only be assumed (none factual) that humans evolved from a sub-species.

Apples too, came from other species.

Is there real evidence for this claim though?, links that assume it is not fact, can it be proven in the laboratory? does any gardener know? or a botanist? what about an expert on apple trees?

I gave you the wikipedia link on the ancestral wild species of what we now call "apple trees'.

Well I must of missed that one then, what about actual observable proof do you have any scientific laboratory proof? saying one thing is one thing but showing that proof is another thing.

They weren't always as you see and eat them today.

If no person or persons were there to witness all of this then how does anyone know that it's existence is a matter of fact?

Humans very likely came from Australopithecus and Homo Habilis and Homo Erectus.There is strong evidence for this...

Strong Assumptions, theories and hypothesis based off observations, one can only assume the prehistoric past, it is none testable it is impossible.

 

[kedge]

I'm off to do some work (cuppa first), i'll pop in when I can and see what others have come up with.

 

[Kisses1990]

But no person or persons can prove this using the scientific method, it appears impossible, therefore it can only be assumed (none factual) that humans evolved from a sub-species.

Is there real evidence for this claim though?, links that assume it is not fact, can it be proven in the laboratory? does any gardener know? or a botanist? what about an expert on apple trees?

Well I must of missed that one then, what about actual observable proof do you have any scientific laboratory proof? saying one thing is one thing but showing that proof is another thing.

If no person or persons were there to witness all of this then how does anyone know that it's existence is a matter of fact?


Strong Assumptions, theories and hypothesis based off observations, one can only assume the prehistoric past, it is none testable it is impossible.

I don't know how to respond to each quote, so just read this in the order that you posted..

1. It HAS been proved using the scientific method. Perhaps you don't agree with what the findings say...that's fine. But it was certainly found using scientific methods, that's for sure. Not hat you have to agree with it.

2. It doesn't have to be witnessed or proven in the "laboratory". This is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. I know it's more tangible and might seem more legitimate to laypeople who are untrained, but these are really not necessary qualities, sorry.

3. Again, you don't need observable evidence. In fact, eye witness testimony is the LEAST reliable. Maybe I forgot to link you, so I will at the end of this post.

4. Again...it's a mistake in understanding to think someone has to "witness" something. This doesn't matter one bit.

5. What assumptions? You're using the word "theories" in the wrong manner, and hypothesis doesn't fit at all. If you want to berate well held theories with LOADS of evidence, you can do that and call it "assumptions". But that is the understatement of the year. It's proven itself time and time again. If you don't like the evidnece now, that's a different story.

 

[bikerchaz]

View attachment 148593

I once believed in evolution but now I have my doubts. Gorillas of ancient times are still Gorillas today. They have not changed. Nor has plant life or the birds that fly in the sky.

What I believed happened is that we were visited by universe travelers who seed planets that can support life. Just as we will do in the far off future. Even in our life time when our astronauts visit Mars we will leave some DNA behind.

Comments welcome

Thank you for what you believe, here is what I believe. Before all (in every sense of the meaning ALL) there was an entity we will call it God and to allow our human brains to comprehend this entity we will call it a Him.
Well one day He made everything that was ever made and still is out of (here I go again so our human brains can understand it) nothing.

Now, If you want to call God a universe traveller you can, but He is much much more to Him than that. He created it all, and life from what He had made, with the elements He had created including the star dust etc etc. What Darwin found was the echo of His blueprint.

To make this easy for you so you will understand, God sat down on a patch of ground and thought about what he would make with this clay stuff all around him, 'LIFE' What a good idea, probably best to start small, so one cell will do for now, a nervous system and a trigger to initialise it, a trigger to initialise consumption and movement so not to be consumed a reproductive method triggered by different types of trigger we will call them proteins.

Every time God made something He saw how good it was and He got excited and made more of the same thing, then other things getting bigger every time, all differing to fit the different environments within the earth He had made, everything down or up the scale to us, His crowning glory, a little lower than the angels but higher than the other creations because we had a job to do looking after all the other stuff He had made, he gave us authority over them and called it "dominion".

Everything made He made, and the 'in place' factors he used and still does use, we call spirits or angels but spirits seem a better word to me, He even made satan and the spirits he is associated with because they had a job to do, and they all, without exception still do it.
Oh no they don't! Oh but yes they do, the earth still holds its place within the creation and the sun and moon and stars and all creation that was ever made, at this point in its entirety, is at the most perfect it will ever be, and we are the top of the top of the top of it all.

But war broke out and what God had made rebelled, and pride bought up more rebellion. And through "Blood" was the only way it could be stopped. when Adam sinned, Gods first crowning glory, blood had to be shed to cover that sin "God made coats of skins" so their nakedness would be covered, this was the very first sacrifice for sin ever made and God did it with His own hands, this set in motion the rest of humankind's life on earth, but God set in motion a rescue plan from the very beginning, He cursed man but also set up a way out.
[SUP]14 [/SUP]So the Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,
“Cursed are you above all livestock
and all wild animals!
You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust
all the days of your life.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[SUP][a][/SUP] and hers;
he will crush[SUP][b][/SUP] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

[SUP]16 [/SUP]To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”
Do you see Jesus in there? Isn't it wonderful! Sin will receive a fatal blow and the son of man will receive a wound so painful as to immobilise him. The fatal wound will prove fatal and bring about the end of satan, the wound that is not fatal will bring about the righteousness of God back to His creation through Jesus Christ our Lord.
he will crush[SUP][b][/SUP] your head,
and you will strike his heel.”
This too is a first, the first time in scripture that Jesus is mentioned, not by name but by action.

Well toldtocare, that is the comment inspired by what you believe. Ask His Holy Spirit to enlighten your spirit with His truth and let the light shine in.
God bless

 

[Ariel82]

View attachment 148593

I once believed in evolution but now I have my doubts. Gorillas of ancient times are still Gorillas today. They have not changed. Nor has plant life or the birds that fly in the sky.

What I believed happened is that we were visited by universe travelers who seed planets that can support life. Just as we will do in the far off future. Even in our life time when our astronauts visit Mars we will leave some DNA behind.

Comments welcome

Worst picture ever.so often misused to represent a false view of what evolution means to the scientific community...like the scriptures the concepts of evolution have been twisted to birth abominations like the Nazi "social evolution" dogma and the Crusades.

Your view is not based on science or the Bible....not sure if there is anything to discuss.

 

[slave]

We know from Scripture (Ecc. 3:21), that the Spirit of animals goes 'downward', whereas when God breathed into man's nostrils the Spirit which makes man's "distinct Spirit" unique to himself over animals came to bear witness And man became a living soul. (Gen 2:7).

Where does man's Spirit go when he dies? "The Spirit of man...goeth 'upward', and the Spirit of the beast....goeth 'downward' to the earth." Therefore are we to say God in Scripture forgets to mention when God changes this order; making "Ape-man" into an aberration of downward and upward, left with a contradictory outcome? And when did that break back into man's exclusive destiny to upward once more, or did it? But how could that be? Why would He say in Gen. what He says only to counter it later? Confusing huh? Is God confusing? No!

'Ape-man' never existed. All fossils found are either 100% Ape, or 100% human, the confusion is when we see inner-species evolution, or DNA generational continuances. We see a wolf become a dog, by mans involvement in that sphere and assume Apes can then become humans especially if you add billions of years to the formula, (time is the cure-all for lack of answers right? Not!). God will never make a variety of wolf and dog become a whale-mutt, or a huma-bird. Inner species DNA in natural placement can and has already shown to be in existence. But God says we will not cross species. "Ape-man" is just that, thus Scripture tells us that evolution as Darwin has introduced is nothing but a lie, a perversion of what God has made Supernaturally, and absolutely!

 

[bikerchaz]

And get yer finger out yer nose, don't yer know yer brains will fall out?

 

[john832]

View attachment 148593

I once believed in evolution but now I have my doubts. Gorillas of ancient times are still Gorillas today. They have not changed. Nor has plant life or the birds that fly in the sky.

What I believed happened is that we were visited by universe travelers who seed planets that can support life. Just as we will do in the far off future. Even in our life time when our astronauts visit Mars we will leave some DNA behind.

Comments welcome

Evolution is MBFM.