Film, Media & TV3 mins ago
Creation / Evolution.
400 Answers
What can you say that you know one thing about evolution?
Answers
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that....
14:20 Thu 06th Feb 2020
//increase of genetic information that led to a mutational advantage.//
In whose view? We have autistic people, who are sometimes described as having a disability, even though they can often be geniuses. And many scientists, artists, inventors, musicians, etc who have since been suspected to have some kind of mental issues. Maybe they are needed as much as anyone else?
In whose view? We have autistic people, who are sometimes described as having a disability, even though they can often be geniuses. And many scientists, artists, inventors, musicians, etc who have since been suspected to have some kind of mental issues. Maybe they are needed as much as anyone else?
Naomi - Assumptions without hard evidence?
No. The universe itself is hard evidence.
Scientist who share your worldview insist the first cause of the universe is to be found within the universe.
That does not make any sense to me.
Then life from non life? Do you assume that is possible?
Miller / Urey tried it in 1953 and failed as has every other attempt since.
Then natural selection through gene mutation, resulting in an increase of genetic information beneficial to the organism? Never been proven with hard evidence and even Dawkins, after making his assumptions, could not give an example.
No. The universe itself is hard evidence.
Scientist who share your worldview insist the first cause of the universe is to be found within the universe.
That does not make any sense to me.
Then life from non life? Do you assume that is possible?
Miller / Urey tried it in 1953 and failed as has every other attempt since.
Then natural selection through gene mutation, resulting in an increase of genetic information beneficial to the organism? Never been proven with hard evidence and even Dawkins, after making his assumptions, could not give an example.
Theland, //The universe itself is hard evidence. //
No, it isn't. It's no evidence at all. It exists but you cannot in any circumstances claim to know how or why - which is what you are doing. You can knock evolution all you like - but that makes you no more 'right' than you've ever been.
Rather than continue to seek endorsement to assuage your doubts just believe what you want to believe - but don't expect people who know rather more than you do about both evolution and the holy books to take you seriously.
No, it isn't. It's no evidence at all. It exists but you cannot in any circumstances claim to know how or why - which is what you are doing. You can knock evolution all you like - but that makes you no more 'right' than you've ever been.
Rather than continue to seek endorsement to assuage your doubts just believe what you want to believe - but don't expect people who know rather more than you do about both evolution and the holy books to take you seriously.
Quite aside from anything else, you are still setting far too much store by the people who are speaking, and far too little by what they are actually saying. Evaluate the evidence for yourself, if you can -- what one PhD says, or a Professor, or even a Nobel Laureate or two, means nothing. They may be right or they may be wrong, but who they are is irrelevant to that. The evidence speaks for itself, if you are in a position to truly listen to what it has to say.
Even creation evolves.
The process of evolution is natural and would surely make sense for god or the devine or evolve, just as we have?
Maybe god did make us all. However, maybe he didn't mean to make us as conscious as we are? Maybe he made us as monkeys, but incorporated his own features to a point that we were able to evolve in such a way to be in his image.
After this god may have realised his mistake, and abandoned us to go try again with a new terrarium.
The process of evolution is natural and would surely make sense for god or the devine or evolve, just as we have?
Maybe god did make us all. However, maybe he didn't mean to make us as conscious as we are? Maybe he made us as monkeys, but incorporated his own features to a point that we were able to evolve in such a way to be in his image.
After this god may have realised his mistake, and abandoned us to go try again with a new terrarium.
"the first cause of the universe is to be found within the universe. That does not make any sense to me."
Since the universe is all we have access to or evidence of, how could we possibly find any frist cause elsewhere ? Something happens, evidence is left, we deduce what actually occurred. It's all anyone ever has.
Life is an emergent quality, so of course it emerges from non-life. It's all there is at the time.
Umpteen examples of beneficial mutation. How else do you think creatures change to adapt to a changing environment ? Ask Darwin a out the finches. That was example enough surely.
Since the universe is all we have access to or evidence of, how could we possibly find any frist cause elsewhere ? Something happens, evidence is left, we deduce what actually occurred. It's all anyone ever has.
Life is an emergent quality, so of course it emerges from non-life. It's all there is at the time.
Umpteen examples of beneficial mutation. How else do you think creatures change to adapt to a changing environment ? Ask Darwin a out the finches. That was example enough surely.
Details yet to be filled in but :
"from whence came life to this planet"
One might debate whether life or the precursors of life fell to the planets from space, or whether it was home brew; but wherever it occurs/occurred, atoms form from the brew in the Big Bang and higher elements in stars and their explosions. Atoms come together to firm molecules. Structures form, and a few inevitably prove to be self replicating. Why would there be any reason that eventually some qualify as life ? Feeding, multiplying, etc..
"and what drives its continuance?"
That original self replicating nature from which life formed. Any that make the mistake of not replicating are not here to tell the tale. Others evolve to fill what was their niche.
"from whence came life to this planet"
One might debate whether life or the precursors of life fell to the planets from space, or whether it was home brew; but wherever it occurs/occurred, atoms form from the brew in the Big Bang and higher elements in stars and their explosions. Atoms come together to firm molecules. Structures form, and a few inevitably prove to be self replicating. Why would there be any reason that eventually some qualify as life ? Feeding, multiplying, etc..
"and what drives its continuance?"
That original self replicating nature from which life formed. Any that make the mistake of not replicating are not here to tell the tale. Others evolve to fill what was their niche.
Old Geezer - There are many problems with evolution.
I have listened to dozens of lectures from scientists highlighting the problems.
Take a bird fossil.
Did they evolve from flying dinosaurs?
Feathers from scales?
Fossilised scales are found, and fossilised feathers, but no transitional samples.
Bird fossils appear suddenly followed by stasis, but no transitional forms earlier.
This is just one problem.
I have listened to dozens of lectures from scientists highlighting the problems.
Take a bird fossil.
Did they evolve from flying dinosaurs?
Feathers from scales?
Fossilised scales are found, and fossilised feathers, but no transitional samples.
Bird fossils appear suddenly followed by stasis, but no transitional forms earlier.
This is just one problem.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles21 mins ago
Will Anyone Notice A Difference?
News23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Crosswords29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
