Question Simple question. Is evolution real?

[Helio]

FYI. In posts 1-74, I found at least 5 references to *Adam*. For some, perhaps the Bible should be translated now as Ardipithecus for references to Adam or Adampithecus, the Quran too. A simple observation here by me. The evolution paradigm is qualitative (much more interpretation), not quantitative as the heliocentric solar system paradigm, e.g. predictions of Io eclipses at Jupiter or phases of Venus or the upcoming 21-Dec close conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter, about 6 arcminute angular separation in the sky. Does the evolution paradigm document quantitative calculations and predictions showing all the changes required for the body mass of an amoeba to a eventually evolve into a Brachiosaur or a mammoth? My answer is no. Another observation by me. How many living fossils from the Precambrian are documented today showing no evolutionary change, and how many examples are needed to falsify the paradigm claiming these *early Precambrian life* are common ancestors to all life found in the fossil record through the Cenozoic?

The fossil evidence was never a key element of evolutionary models. In the 19th century, very few fossils were known. Today, we have thousands of tiny fragments, like teeth, but not full skeletons that are millions of years old, not even close. [It would be interesting to know the age of the oldest full skeleton. Perhaps 100k years?]

The issue becomes what is happening in the overlap zones where paleoanthropology overlaps evolution models, or religion for that matter. The overlap is where one set of objective evidence from an allied science can either support one direction or redirect another scientific field of endeavor. Fossil evidence does influence evolution models, especially if they falsify any claims within the model. The discovery of Ardi simply moved the age back a bit for the earliest hominin and made evolutionary trees more "bushy".

Adam is a unique character. In my view, FWIW and I'm open to other views, is that our planet developed a remarkably great set of genes/DNA/RNA etc. via evolutionary processes to serve as to what the dirt ( dust and clay) of the land could produce in order to receive that special gift known as a "living soul". This could be the same method used for other evolutionary advanced and extremely fortunate other planets.

 

[Catastrophe]

Did you get it?

Yes, thank you.

 

[IG2007]

Yes, thank you.

Great.

 

[science chick]

No . I honestly don't think it is ACTUALLY true

 

[Geomartian]

The genes are already there waiting.

You just need to know where to look.

I feel so much better now.

 

[Catastrophe]

"FYI Ken and Cat. "

Why are you including me in that?

 

[Catastrophe]

May I please refer you all to #18?

 

[Catastrophe]

OK, to save you the bother:

If we can exclude extra terrestrial intervention, and independent occurrence of similar species as in monkeys, apes and humans, then is not evolution a simple YES / NO question?

Let me please remind all concerned, the above is the subject of this thread. My personal judgment is that any differentiation between "evolution" and "macroevolution" may be a semantic quibble. It is for you to decide.

 

[Wolfern]

If we can exclude extra terrestrial intervention, and independent occurrence of similar species as in monkeys, apes and humans, then is not evolution a simple YES / NO question?

The simple answer is "NO". Evolution would require a statistically impossible chain of events. Nothing comes from nothing, unless there is a cause. Having nothing explode and turn hydrogen into life is impossible.

 

[COLGeek]

The simple answer is "NO". Evolution would require a statistically impossible chain of events. Nothing comes from nothing, unless there is a cause. Having nothing explode and turn hydrogen into life is impossible.

Improbable, unlikely, difficult? Yes.

Impossible? No.

The evidence is all around us.

 

[Helio]

The simple answer is "NO". Evolution would require a statistically impossible chain of events. Nothing comes from nothing, unless there is a cause. Having nothing explode and turn hydrogen into life is impossible.

It seems to me your argument is really against Big Bang theory, which avoids causation because physics falls apart at t=0. It’s better to see BBT as it was originally formed. Fr. Lemaitre demonstrated that we reside in an expanding universe thanks to both his solution for General Relativity and armed with the remarkable redshift results from Vesto Slipher. So, rewind the clock ~13.8 billion years and, surprisingly, modern physics has equations that work after the first ~ nanosecond.

It’s astounding how many parameters and force values had to be so perfect just to allow stars to form. Faith, or philosophy, is needed to help explain such events as science has its limits, thus suppositions are needed, but they aren’t justified by science in a definitive way. Any claims of “statistical impossibilities” are merely subjective ones, and outside the purview of science.

 

[Wolfern]

Improbable, unlikely, difficult? Yes.

Impossible? No.

The evidence is all around us.

The evidence shows only that life exists, not how it got here. Your faith in evolution is remarkable. It is a greater faith than many religious people have in God. It is that faith that makes evolution a religion.

 

[COLGeek]

The evidence shows only that life exists, not how it got here. Your faith in evolution is remarkable. It is a greater faith than many religious people have in God. It is that faith that makes evolution a religion.

Noted. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. Equating evolution to religion is a weak argument. Knowledge, science, facts are different than faith.

Not to debate theology (this is not the forum for that), but who's faith is correct (when viewed through a religious lens)? Many belief systems with varied views on "the beginning". What makes one faith "more" than another?

 

[Wolfern]

Noted. I disagree, but you are entitled to your opinion. Equating evolution to religion is a weak argument. Knowledge, science, facts are different than faith.

Not to debate theology (this is not the forum for that), but who's faith is correct (when viewed through a religious lens)? Many belief systems with varied views on "the beginning". What makes one faith "more" than another?

You are right, this is perhaps not the forum for that debate, although I would love to have it with you. Suffice it to say that having faith in nothing exploding and turning not only into everything, but also into life, without actually being able to test or observe it, requires a great deal of faith. We cannot observe what happened a hundred years ago, but at least we have written records. What happened millions or billions of years ago can obviously not be tested or observed. Trying to come up with models or ideas as to what might have happened might be interesting and fun, but in no way bestows truth on those models or ideas.
I used to be a staunch evolutionist and thought nothing could sway my belief in it. It was only after I started hearing the views and evidence from bona-fide scientists (such was Newton and many others), that I had to consider the evidences all in a new light. I could not longer say, "don't bother me with the facts, I have already made up my mind."

 

[Atlan0001]

I agree with physicist Michio Kaku when he stated that in the last two million years humanity has increased in numbers one million fold, but it being nothing to its increase in energy (energy, structure (including infrastructure), complexity and reaches) two million fold, average per every man, woman, and child living. One million fold of that two million fold increase in energy obtaining to humanity in just the last 76 years. That is the real change. That is the real evolution.

 

[Helio]

The evidence shows only that life exists, not how it got here.

That’s generally true for abiogenesis, but patently false for evolution. The objective evidence is very compelling in favor of evolutionary theory. Darwin’s brilliance was actually rejected initially because he had no solution for how traits remained stable. Genetics later solved that problem. But evolution doesn’t address the very beginning of life, ignoring abiogenesis. This is very similar to BBT where events at t=0 must be ignored. Theories all have limits; they avoid zones where only pseudoscience reigns.

Your faith in evolution is remarkable. It is a greater faith than many religious people have in God. It is that faith that makes evolution a religion.

I prefer to think that most people have confidence that Evolution is true rather than having faith in Evolution. This is especially true for those who put their faith in God. Science is the conversation with Nature, which is God’s handiwork.

 

[Wolfern]

I agree with physicist Michio Kaku when he stated that in the last two million years humanity has increased in numbers one million fold, but it being nothing to its increase in energy (energy, structure (including infrastructure), complexity and reaches) two million fold, average per every man, woman, and child living. One million fold of that two million fold increase in energy obtaining to humanity in just the last 76 years. That is the real change. That is the real evolution.

Humans remain human. There have been no documented changes of any species into other species. Humans have been endowed with the ability to be aware of self and to reason, developing thoughts, ideas, ambitions, and tools. In all that, they remain the same humans. Macro evolution is a myth. Micro evolution leads to adaptation, but not to speciation. There is no evidence of evolution; merely evidence of past life of all kinds of animals. There is no evidence of changes from one species to another. No amount of interpreting the evidence in ways that would support a preconceived idea. Any mutations that have been documented and observed have always been detrimental to the species that has experienced it. It is our vain desire to explain away supernatural creation that inspires belief in and unsupportable interpretations of the evidence. Nice try, though.

 

[rod]

Something to consider in post #92, *macro evolution*. Galileo observed the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter in the early 1600s using his telescope. Using my telescopes I can do the same today, over 400 years later. When you compare standards of scientific testing like this, macro evolution does not have such an observational history. Microorganisms are still microorganisms, and many similar to Precambrian fossil forms dated now 4.28 billion years old along with more than 3,000 documented living fossils (another problem). No one observed a microorganism evolve into a cow since the time of Galileo or non-living matter evolve into life. I can still see those Galilean moons orbiting at Jupiter though.

 

[Wolfern]

That’s generally true for abiogenesis, but patently false for evolution. The objective evidence is very compelling in favor of evolutionary theory. Darwin’s brilliance was actually rejected initially because he had no solution for how traits remained stable. Genetics later solved that problem. But evolution doesn’t address the very beginning of life, ignoring abiogenesis. This is very similar to BBT where events at t=0 must be ignored. Theories all have limits; they avoid zones where only pseudoscience reigns.

I prefer to think that most people have confidence that Evolution is true rather than having faith in Evolution. This is especially true for those who put their faith in God. Science is the conversation with Nature, which is God’s handiwork.

Confidence equals faith. If I swing out over a precipice on a rope, it is only because I have the confidence/faith in the rope. If I step out of a plane with a parachute, it is only because I have confidence/faith in that parachute. You can have confidence in evolution, but you cannot observe or test it. It is not a theory, which has to be testable and repeatable. It is merely a model and one that needs to be modified time and again to fit the new evidences that are being discovered.

 

[rod]

Confidence equals faith. If I swing out over a precipice on a rope, it is only because I have the confidence/faith in the rope. If I step out of a plane with a parachute, it is only because I have confidence/faith in that parachute. You can have confidence in evolution, but you cannot observe or test it. It is not a theory, which has to be testable and repeatable. It is merely a model and one that needs to be modified time and again to fit the new evidences that are being discovered.

A critical element of the scientific method is falsifiability by testing. What test(s) can we conduct today that falsifies microorganisms in the Precambrian, evolved into dinosaurs and mammoths? There are plenty of examples of microorganism on the planet today. Going back to Galileo, if others in the time of Galileo using their telescopes failed to see those tiny lights moving around Jupiter, a problem would appear quickly with the claims of Galileo.

 

[Wolfern]

Something to consider in post #92, *macro evolution*. Galileo observed the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter in the early 1600s using his telescope. Using my telescopes I can do the same today, over 400 years later. When you compare standards of scientific testing like this, macro evolution does not have such an observational history. Microorganisms are still microorganisms, and many similar to Precambrian fossil forms dated now 4.28 billion years old along with more than 3,000 documented living fossils (another problem). No one observed a microorganism evolve into a cow since the time of Galileo or non-living matter evolve into life. I can still see those Galilean moons orbiting at Jupiter though.

Nor has anyone ever seen a bacterium evolve into even the most simple of ameba. Evolution not only does not happen, it cannot happen. Consider the eye. In order for the lens to have evolved, it would have needed the retina for it to focus light on to. In order for the retina to have evolved, it would had to have a lens that it needed to receive the light from. The lens would not have formed if it did not convey a benefit to the creature in which it was evolving to. It would have conveyed no benefit if the retina (rods and cones) had not existed. Did they both evolve at the same time. That would be totally contrary to the evolutionary idea. There are many examples like that.

 

[rod]

Nor has anyone ever seen a bacterium evolve into even the most simple of ameba. Evolution not only does not happen, it cannot happen. Consider the eye. In order for the lens to have evolved, it would have needed the retina for it to focus light on to. In order for the retina to have evolved, it would had to have a lens that it needed to receive the light from. The lens would not have formed if it did not convey a benefit to the creature in which it was evolving to. It would have conveyed no benefit if the retina (rods and cones) had not existed. Did they both evolve at the same time. That would be totally contrary to the evolutionary idea. There are many examples like that.

FYI. Some could point to beneficial mutations and some type of genetic code changes but quantifying how this happens using math and showing the steps needed to evolve simple cell organisms into mammoths for example, could be a work in progress still

 

[Wolfern]

FYI. Some could point to beneficial mutations and some type of genetic code changes but quantifying how this happens using math and showing the steps needed to evolve simple cell organisms into mammoths for example, could be a work in progress still

I'm sorry, but in my seventy years, I have never seen anyone point to a beneficial mutation. Please send me some documentation, or at least refer to them in this thread, that points to even one beneficial mutation.
Thanks.

 

[rod]

I'm sorry, but in my seventy years, I have never seen anyone point to a beneficial mutation. Please send me some documentation, or at least refer to them in this thread, that points to even one beneficial mutation.
Thanks.

Wolfern, I refer to beneficial mutations based upon the common usage of the term I see in literature promoting and teaching biological evolution, often connected with natural selection too. Specific examples I do not have.

Here is an observation from me. The Galilean moons at Jupiter are all testable and verifiable including accurate eclipse event predictions I can watch using my telescopes based upon natural law and math. Biological evolution does not compare well here with the math and predications that describe the Galilean moons at Jupiter.

 

[Helio]

There have been no documented changes of any species into other species.

If we use the simple reproductive idea for species changes then this seems to be false.

From here. "Mosquitoes that colonized the London Underground in 1863 are now so different they can no longer mate with their above-ground relatives "

Most of the evidence, admittedly, argues clearly that new varieties are formed. Breeders exist for this purpose. It doesn't take too much imagination to allow circumstances (e.g. environments) to allow those varieties to progressively create new varieties to the point that the original version is too different to allow it to be considered of the same species.

It does bother me at least a little when I read scientific articles, as linked, that lean one way or another. In that article there is no mention of the word "varieties", which is primarily what the article is about. "Evolution" becomes overly emphasized, IMO, as a result.

There is no evidence of changes from one species to another. No amount of interpreting the evidence in ways that would support a preconceived idea. Any mutations that have been documented and observed have always been detrimental to the species that has experienced it.

If you are okay with microevolution (new varieties) then how can you claim all mutations are detrimental?

It doesn't take a genius to assume a series of hundreds of sequential changes in a variety might produce the result of a new species. It only amplifies how remarkable creation is, IMO. The more we look, the more we see wonder not just in object form but in processes.

It is our vain desire to explain away supernatural creation that inspires belief in and unsupportable interpretations of the evidence. Nice try, though.

In the last 4 or 5 centuries, supernatural claims have been made foolish thanks to science. Galileo did a nice job explaining how religion should take science into careful consideration for any interpretation where science has some say.

There are still witch doctors today that use supernatural claims for their service. There are religious organizations that, at no charge, replace contaminated water wells for tribes with new deep-drilled wells. The immediate improvement to the health of the tribe does a lot to diminish the whining and threats from the witch doctor.