Evolution Vs God

From your article:

It's not life, they stress, but it certainly gives the science community a whole new data set to chew on.

 

There should be millions of different transitional animals, ya'all have shown me one. There is no denying that living creatures evolve to adapt to their environment the lung fish is obviously one of them. But, you still have a long way to go to show all the transitional steps necessary to go from even single cell critters that no amount of modern science has been able to reproduce to where we are today.

- - - Updated - - -

I guess it could be a lungfish, but it looks like a brook trout to me.

 

Yup....definitely a weak reality when compared to all the evidence compiled that "God" did it. Let's see here:

We spend a couple years messing around with the possibility that energy may have made some inorganic chemicals begin self replication and kick start evolution.....and we show it is a definite possibility, knowing the actual process had billions of years and billions of chemical combinations to play with.

~OR~

We spend a couple thousand years thinking something unseen, unknown, unimaginable, untestable, and shown to be a product of human imagination created everything in a couple days because it wanted to have some toys to play with.


I must choose the first as likely, and let the evaluation continue....if only because it can.

 

Where is the current goal post...?



And why would there be "Millions" of transitional fossils, considering the rarity of finding fossils in the first place and the chances of finding something so clearly transitional that you would accept it...there is pretty much no possibility.

Likely you would dismiss the fact that whales have leg bones, snakes have actual legs (sometimes), we have tailbones, or flightless birds have wings.

 

I'll up you one. Every single life form that has ever lived on this planet, unless it was the very first life form or did not have offspring, is a transitional form. This is a very typical mistake creationists make - the whole idea of a "transitional form" is wrong, mainly because every form is transitional. Evolution is a very gradual process for the most part, with evolutions building up over generations upon generations. And given the inherent rarity of the process of fossilization, we wouldn't expect to see millions of transitional fossils. However, we do have quite a few key ones, especially when it comes to mammalian evolution. For example, Tiktaalik shows an example of one of the species at the dawn of the amphibian phyla. Archaeopteryx is one of the earliest birds. Casineria, possibly the first amniote. And the list keeps going. Hell, how far you wanna go down the rabbit hole basically depends entirely on how long you're willing to spend on google/visiting your local prehistory museum and checking out the bones/listening to lectures in college. There is a massive berth of evidence out there. I'm not informed enough nor do I have the time to spoonfeed too much of it to you, but just go check it out. Google "earliest mammal" or "evolution of reptiles" or "phylogeny of <insert taxon here>". Most of it is on full display.

Well, we've mapped out a gigantic number of these steps, provided a plausible and demonstrably functional method through which they could be achieved, amassed a more amazing compendium of evidence than virtually any other scientific theory, and have shown significant predictive power (i.e. people predicting where fossils of a certain type and of certain phylogenetic qualities could be found based on other information contained within the theory). And that's further backed up by an entire mess of other evidence - genetic differences being an incredibly useful benchmark for age of phylogenetic divergence in the tree of life, endogenous retroviruses which make no sense without common descent, et cetera. For most scientists who understand it, it is more than enough. If you're demanding we have fossil evidence of all transitional forms, then your demands are both unreasonable and impossible.

Just for reference, the lungfish as we know it today did not exist back when Amphibians were first evolving. The animals we're looking for had lungs and gills, like lungfish, and almost certainly belonged to Sarcopterygii, but keep in mind that as is often the case with early phyla in the tree of life, Sarcopterygii is massive, literally containing all tetrapods, and with it all mammals, birds, dinosaurs, etc.

As for you not recognizing the fossil, well, that's why we don't ask laypersons about this kind of thing. I couldn't tell you what that fossil was, but I don't recognize the significant differences between Homo Sapiens and Homo Habilis until I get shown what it is.

Of course. But as previously pointed out, all indication is that creating actual life in the lab is most likely not far away.

 

Ray "The Banana Man" Comfort is all about, Ray Comfort. He and his family all make a living from the lies and misinformation he perpetuates. He has been shown, many times, where his is categorically wrong but yet, he continues to repeat his BULSH over and over. Why? because he know full well, there are a fundies all over the US who need to feel as thought their belief in a mythical sky fairy is valid and rational...when it is neither.

 

Every animal is transitional

Feel free to present your qualifications to judge, or try something new like admitting you are wrong

 

The link above challenges the "scientific theory".

 

Well no - your site demonstrats a pretty poor understanding of how mutation and adaptive radiation works

 

They do it all the time, but it's like voter fraud, it never leaves a trace...

 

Err... No. The site is, at its core, filled with utter bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

Complete hogwash. No coincidence that the site provides no citation for this claim, as it cannot. Its claims from selective breeding completely miss the time frame in which macroevolution generally operates.

There is nothing imaginary about mutation adding new information.

It basically goes on from there, reciting every basic trope that has been proven wrong time and time again. "Always remains bacteria", well what do you expect? It's impossible to evolve out of your taxon, because that's not how a nesting heirarchy works. You wouldn't expect bacteria to give birth to anything other than bacteria. That said, "bacteria" is such a huge category that it completely misses the point. It brings up irreducible complexity (in the example of the dog with the hammer) but completely misses that every single such complex system evolved gradually - nothing in evolution just came out of nowhere.

Honestly, you need to rethink your sources when talking about science. Creationists (at least the ones preaching it), by and large, know this crap is wrong. It's been explained thousands of times. But they still post (*)(*)(*)(*) like that. And if you don't know anything about evolution, it will sound convincing. If you aren't either in on the discussion or majoring in evolutionary biology, you might miss the blatant quote-mining. But they aren't. None of these arguments actually work, most of the quotes are taken horribly out of context, and the science behind their rejection of evolution holds up to absolutely no real scrutiny. I'm not going to spend a lot of time debunking that page, because, well, other people have done it better, and there's a lot of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) there. I could debunk every claim on that page, and then you could come back 10 minutes later and post another such creationist screed. It's all bull(*)(*)(*)(*). If these objections held even the slightest bit of water, we wouldn't still be teaching evolution in our schools. We wouldn't still consider it the backbone of modern biology.

I invite you to do some critical research of your own; maybe talk to a biology professor about it or something like that; maybe check out TheLivingDinosaur and DonExodus on youtube, as they are both trained biologists who put in a lot of work answering exactly this kind of nonsense (and in the case of the former, it's hilarious and cathartic). Or maybe take a course on it. Because the fact is, your sources are not trustworthy or knowledgeable.

 

In the end, the people like Ray Comfort ask us if we can prove beyond all doubt that science is correct about evolution, and the answer is no.
We can't, we can be very assured by the material that it is probably true, but that means we have to have "faith" that Darwin didn't make up his journals, and that Crick and Watson didn't fake the structure of DNA and that all science isn't a big con game to get funding.
But we can safely say the Christianity is a pile of rubbish, complete nonsense and that includes the Old Testament and the Koran, all rubbish.

So while we can't say that there is no god, we can say that the Jesus story goes with Harry Potter on the Fiction shelf.

And Science, while it does require some faith, at least doesn't confront us with the absurdities we'd have to swallow to give an ounce of credence to the Abrahamic fairy tales that form the basis of modern religion. So we are believing and having faith in that system that requires the least faith to believe, because so much of it is testable, and we can test some of it, and most of it does get tested, and if something fails the test, it goes away.
So whats left hasn't been proven true, but it hasn't been proven false.

 

I think there is no reason to debate Evolution Vs the Bible:




Book:


The Last Human: A Guide to Twenty-Two Species of Extinct Humans
by G.J.Sawyer, (Author)

 

No living entity can live without bacteria that live within them and on them so your argument that bacteria never evolve past being bacteria is correct. It is however the activities of bacteria in their environment that evolve new biochemical chemistry that has a direct relationship to how multi-cellular organisms like Humans evolve into different physiological body plans.

 

http://bit.ly/153tb8Z

 

This makes approximately zero sense. First of all, the bacteria you are describing live in a fairly specifically evolved symbiosis with humans (and numerous other mammals). Of course you can't get here from there now; it's like trying to build an arch bridge starting from the keystone.

 

Do you understand that HGT determines how we name that species of bacteria? Since they swap DNA when exposed to a different environment, they are also given a new name based on their new additional DNA make-up. Bacteria in the human body vary to Human to human depending on what they regularly consume in their diets. This has been proven in obese people in that they have a reduced population of many species of bacteria and are over populated with a selected few.

It has also been proven that our bacteria is not just limited to our digestive system, they are everyone throughout our bodies. We can not survive very long if our bodies were sterile of microbes. We could not breathe air without microbes producing air nor the mitochondria cells which reverses the process when we exhale air. The food we consume would not be possible without nitrogen fixating bacteria that allow plant life to grow. The list goes on and on about bacteria being absolutely essential for life to exist.

 

Has anyone ever produced any evidence of the existence of any of the hundreds of different gods that world's religions have stated exist historical?

So many "gods" and no evidence of any of them.... ever!

 

Creationists are wrong about the process god used to create life, while the "Evolutionists" are wrong about Genesis opposing the ToE.


The Big Bang was "In the beginning,"...
Light was delayed for 400 million years before the Stars appeared...
"All the water under heaven was collected together into one place" during the third Era when Pangea/Rodinia came together...

The 22 names in the Genesis genealogy were the "22 now extinct humans" that left only the three sons of Noah as the 3 racial stocks that populated the whole earth thereafter, Caucasians, mongoloids, and Negroids.

etc etc etc..

 

Modern science has established the god of truth exists:

John 14:6 And Jesus said, "I am the Truth, and the way, and the life"...

 

Then perhaps you can explain/account for the many alleles (different states of a gene) found in modern populations today, if they did not come about through evolution, but, came from Noah and his shipmates....a possible total of 10 of alleles.

 

Actually....Modern science has pretty much done the exact opposite of what you claim. And, what the he!! is "the God of Truth"?

Is it the Honesty Fairy?
Is it Yahweh?
Krishna perhaps?
.....there seems very little truth to be found in religion.

 

Please look up the word "facile", see how it applies to you, and
avoid further spectacle.

 

The guy's an idiot - as are the people bored enough to give him the time of day