Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min 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
https:/
Here's one.
Here's one.
https:/
German palaeontologist.
German palaeontologist.
Gunter Blechly palaeontologist. Curator of evolution at a German museum for many years.
Illustrates how sudden appearances of species are followed by stasis and the impossibility of gradual change from one species to another.
Darwin and Dawkins both rely on no sudden change but gradualism, which does not explain the species.
Birds fossils arrive suddenly about 65m years ago and archaeopteryx were before that but bore no resemblance to birds.
https:/
Illustrates how sudden appearances of species are followed by stasis and the impossibility of gradual change from one species to another.
Darwin and Dawkins both rely on no sudden change but gradualism, which does not explain the species.
Birds fossils arrive suddenly about 65m years ago and archaeopteryx were before that but bore no resemblance to birds.
https:/
https:/
Professor Peltzer illustrates how the simple cell is irreducibly complex and that abiogenesis is nothing more than a myth.
Inorganic chemicals cannot evolve, reproduce or become anything resembling life.
Professor Peltzer illustrates how the simple cell is irreducibly complex and that abiogenesis is nothing more than a myth.
Inorganic chemicals cannot evolve, reproduce or become anything resembling life.
https:/
Dr Georgia Purdom - Cellular Complexity.
It is worth mentioning now that many of these scientists are dismissed as being Christians, and that's why they hold the views they do.
The opposite is true.
Having delved into the science far beyond what the average person can understand, the reality that evolution is false becomes overpowering, and as there is no metaphysical prohibition in their search for truth, then attributing the miracle of life to God is a natural next step.
As one scientist said, it is a bigger leap to go from amino acids to a microbe than from a microbe to a man.
Dr Georgia Purdom - Cellular Complexity.
It is worth mentioning now that many of these scientists are dismissed as being Christians, and that's why they hold the views they do.
The opposite is true.
Having delved into the science far beyond what the average person can understand, the reality that evolution is false becomes overpowering, and as there is no metaphysical prohibition in their search for truth, then attributing the miracle of life to God is a natural next step.
As one scientist said, it is a bigger leap to go from amino acids to a microbe than from a microbe to a man.
https:/
Dr Thomas Kindell.
The Monarch Butterfly.
This is truly beyond any human intelligence you could possibly imagine.
Dr Thomas Kindell.
The Monarch Butterfly.
This is truly beyond any human intelligence you could possibly imagine.
https:/
Dr Spike Psarris NASA Engineer and scientist.
FOR NAILIT
You asked if I believe in a young or old Earth.
Watch this video and you will see for yourself the conflict.
Dr Spike Psarris NASA Engineer and scientist.
FOR NAILIT
You asked if I believe in a young or old Earth.
Watch this video and you will see for yourself the conflict.
I agree that there is no need to work out what type of creationism because it would fail due to it's lack of evidence when a scientific theory, supported by evidence, is proven beyond reasonable doubt, no matter what type of creationism it was.
Cats don't evolve into dogs. They are different branches from a common ancestor. Maybe that is the misunderstanding ?
Macro evolution is, as I stated earlier, just micro evolution writ large.
IMO one can't believe in one yet deny the other because they are the same thing. Once you agree that mutations occassionally survive because they prove to be beneficial then you accept diversity in a species and the ability of a changing hostile environment to alter the species beyond recognition over long periods of time.
If one single species gets split up and one part has no connection with another, for whatever reason, then the separate groups cease to interbreed and so follow their own different individual evolutionary paths until the accumulated changes are such that they are clearly different but related species. This is surely straightforward/logical, and fossil records support this even if we don't always find every step along the way
So denial just boils down to an inability to believe, possibly due to spiritual or religious faith, and relying on a lack of human understanding of how all complex systems we see today could have evolved. But that is just down to the fact that we are still ignorant of every factual detail, and it is unreasonable to insist every i is dotted and t crossed before grudging accepting the most likely, most supported by the evidence, explanation. If one must have faith, and faith is no bad thing, then save much of it for belief that our knowledge will expand, and in time fill in the minor details presently quibbled over.
Cats don't evolve into dogs. They are different branches from a common ancestor. Maybe that is the misunderstanding ?
Macro evolution is, as I stated earlier, just micro evolution writ large.
IMO one can't believe in one yet deny the other because they are the same thing. Once you agree that mutations occassionally survive because they prove to be beneficial then you accept diversity in a species and the ability of a changing hostile environment to alter the species beyond recognition over long periods of time.
If one single species gets split up and one part has no connection with another, for whatever reason, then the separate groups cease to interbreed and so follow their own different individual evolutionary paths until the accumulated changes are such that they are clearly different but related species. This is surely straightforward/logical, and fossil records support this even if we don't always find every step along the way
So denial just boils down to an inability to believe, possibly due to spiritual or religious faith, and relying on a lack of human understanding of how all complex systems we see today could have evolved. But that is just down to the fact that we are still ignorant of every factual detail, and it is unreasonable to insist every i is dotted and t crossed before grudging accepting the most likely, most supported by the evidence, explanation. If one must have faith, and faith is no bad thing, then save much of it for belief that our knowledge will expand, and in time fill in the minor details presently quibbled over.
Cats not evolving into dogs, does not prove that evolution doesn't exist. We ourselves, have a tailbone, appendix, and some kind of gills (can't remember what sqad told me there exactly)... but all just remnants of previous needs, which haven't entirely evolved out yet, but are in the process of it. Have you seen documentaries about Neanderthals etc?
I do avoid the videos now, as I have tried a couple on occasion, and they started off so warped and nonsensical, there was nowhere for them to honestly go. It would be better, maybe, to answer for yourself and use the odd video if you must, as back-up. Because you tend to use other people's views instead of answering, not as well as, it just appears that you don't understand it enough yourself to explain it here.
I do avoid the videos now, as I have tried a couple on occasion, and they started off so warped and nonsensical, there was nowhere for them to honestly go. It would be better, maybe, to answer for yourself and use the odd video if you must, as back-up. Because you tend to use other people's views instead of answering, not as well as, it just appears that you don't understand it enough yourself to explain it here.
As usual Theland lapses into post Youtube links and doesn't address any points made.
I clearly demonstrated using simple mathematics that tiny genetic changes can accumulate into one species diverging into two distinct species. His response is the vague hand waving claiming there are too many assumptions but refuses to specify what he considers is an assumption.
Pathetic really.
I clearly demonstrated using simple mathematics that tiny genetic changes can accumulate into one species diverging into two distinct species. His response is the vague hand waving claiming there are too many assumptions but refuses to specify what he considers is an assumption.
Pathetic really.
With all respect, genuinely, beso, I'm not even sure that needs mathematics... it is just common sense. Clearly, DNA doesn't always replicate perfectly- or you would never have two "healthy" parents, with a disabled child. And many disabilities, although we call them that, are beneficial to humans in general. Many previous scientists, artists, inventors etc, have been since diagnosed with some or other "disability" that just weren't recognised at the time. We have autistic people, who are basically geniuses.
All that takes mutation of some kind... and if it can happen within a generation, why is it not possible over millions of years? (To theland).
All that takes mutation of some kind... and if it can happen within a generation, why is it not possible over millions of years? (To theland).
Evolution is a continuous process. It makes no sense, then, to argue that the absence of discrete transitions is proof against it. You wouldn't expect a cat to turn into a dog, and you wouldn't really expect to be able to tell from any fossil when a species turned from one into another. From that individual's point of view, it was both and it was neither.
// Illustrates how sudden appearances of species are followed by stasis and the impossibility of gradual change from one species to another.//
yup punctuated equilibrium or punctuated evolution - I cant remember which ( but hell this is AB) - periods of stability and quick change accounts for the lack of forms in between
ne thorny problem is the evolution of the mammal eye
darwin said once we work out the evolution of the eye it will prove the theory of evolution#
and
the crayzies say - the mammalian eye cannot possibly have evolved so someone must have created it hence Intelligent Design
odd that the same fact is used in two opposite theories.
yup punctuated equilibrium or punctuated evolution - I cant remember which ( but hell this is AB) - periods of stability and quick change accounts for the lack of forms in between
ne thorny problem is the evolution of the mammal eye
darwin said once we work out the evolution of the eye it will prove the theory of evolution#
and
the crayzies say - the mammalian eye cannot possibly have evolved so someone must have created it hence Intelligent Design
odd that the same fact is used in two opposite theories.
