Why is evolution hiding?

[Im_Ryan]

After reading the first post:
What is this? Pokemon?

After seeing 26 pages of replies:
LOL TL;DR

[Phatt Matt s]

After reading the first post:
What is this? Pokemon?

After seeing 26 pages of replies:
LOL TL;DR

TL=too long?
DR=Done reading?

[Silver]

TL=too long?
DR=Done reading?

DR = Didn't Read

[Im_Ryan]

After reading the first post:
What is this? Pokemon?

After seeing 26 pages of replies:
LOL TL;DR

TL=too long?
DR=Done reading? Didn't read

[Tonus]

Too Loony; Deranged Replies

[Esquilax]

It would make sense that 97% of Scientists believe Evolution to be true because evolution is true.

I'm glad we got that out of the way.

Actually, there is plenty evidence for a designer. Scientists have confirmed that there are people of various Religions who have worked miracles. Very seldom does it happen and few people will witness it. I'd say what happened at Fatima Portugal, the Guadalupe tilma, and the medical findings at Lourdes and eslewhere are evidence.

Hold on, man. References please, don't just assert this. Show me some mainstream, peer reviewed scientific findings on this. That point to god, not just "unknown cause," because that'd be an argument from ignorance.

As it happens, I'm familiar with the first two examples you gave; in Fatima, random witness testimony that was only reported and never recorded isn't exactly the best kind of evidence, and as for Guadalupe, as I mentioned before that hasn't been allowed an actual scientific investigation in decades, and even when there was one the determination was never that it was a miracle.

What do the people holding this thing back have to hide?

The beauty of creation.

The Earth's size and corresponding gravity holds a thin layer of mostly nitrogen and oxygen gases, only extending about 50 miles above the Earth's surface. If Earth were smaller, an atmosphere would be impossible, like the planet Mercury. If Earth were larger, its atmosphere would contain free hydrogen, like Jupiter.

So? Saying something is one way and if it was another it'd be different isn't much of an argument for anything unless you can somehow show that the planet being the way it is was made as a "success" state it could have failed to form in.

The Earth is located the right distance from the sun. Much closer or further away and we'd freeze or burn.

The earth is on an elliptical orbit, and its distance from the sun varies by many millions of miles depending on the time of year without ill effect.

our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull.

Again, so?

Also, when I bite into a strawberry it seems like that strawberry was designed to delight tastebuds.

Actually? It was evolved to delight the tastebuds. You do know fruits have a purpose, right? They're seed carriers; animals take the fruits and eat them, hence spreading the seeds when they pass out the other end. The fact that they taste and look good is an evolved trait to entice you to eat them and hence spread the seeds.

THe problem I have is that tor said is that DNA proves that our grandparents way back were single cell organism. DNA PROVES no such thing. Scientific theory is not proof so I wish people wouldn't state it like it is and then considering people uneducated idiots if they disagree.

The idea of a common ancestor is an inference made based on the information we have; we know evolution happens to every species on the planet, we've got constructed lineages of many species that show common links to other species in the past... why would we not then logically conclude that this principle, which is all we observe in nature, is also true at its largest possible resolution?

[Mr Greene]

The subjective view that the planet Earth is well suited for life fails to account for the fact that life on it has evolved specifically to cope with the environment of this planet.
Added to which there is significant evidence that life may be found on other bodies in the Solar System;
Mars - Seasonal methane plumes
Europa - Red stripes matching bacterial spectra
Titan - Liquid organic compounds
It also fails to address the number of other bodies across the universe in which suitable conditions for life may occur.

[Phatt Matt s]

Hey, I was saying evidence for a designer not proof. I didn't provide the links that you asked for because I've done that more than once and don't want to be spamming.

---

Also, Science can never determine that a miracle came from God. What they can determine is, For example, someone had an incureable malady and it was healed completely and instantaneously with no explanation.

[SteelCurtain]

TC, there are several things I would appreciate you specifically addressing, if you would.

1) Do you call any science that uses a preponderance of evidence rather than direct measurement "Just a theory?" Because, while, yes, evolution happens on a VERY long timescale so as not to be seen (in macro-organisms) by the naked eye, all of the evidence---literally, all of it---keeps rolling in, and somehow it always supports the conclusion of common ancestry.

2) Your expectation of evolution having the same result everywhere is flawed. It seems as if you expect, given enough time, that all organisms will wind up as humans. I get this idea from you asking the question, several times, why gorillas haven't evolved technology or chimps not looking more like us. That's not the way it works. The changes that happen are random. Adaptations that are deleterious are bred out of the population, adaptations that are beneficial are statistically more likely to be kept. There is no guarantee that any specific mutation will happen, though. Gorillas may never have a mutation that allows higher cognition (on our level). Hell,we (humans) are extremely lucky that multiple mutations happened that allowed that same higher cognition in us. It's not a pipeline to the same destination, is what I'm saying. Where did you get that idea?

3) We have stated, several times, that evolution, in micro-organisms, is testable, observable, and have even provided links to data and peer-reviewed articles stating the same. By what mechanism do you suggest that it is any different for macro-organisms?

[Rampant.A.I.]

Thunder you are beyond annoying.

Process of evolution is happening all around us but at a very very very slow pace. I'm talking millions of years of mutation and adaptation.

Look up the history of dogs and how humans sped up the process by inducing and controlling what mates with what.

Gorillas aren't getting smarter because they are stronger and more equipped to survive without tools, thus they won't likely change unless we change their habitat and wait 25 million years to see how they evolved.

Again whenever evolution runs across your head you have to think of how big of a number is a million or 10 million years and how much a specie can change after a very long amount of time.

Even humans changed in 5000 years, only 5000 years!!

Yes and as I've said many times which people seem to ignore is that I'm not saying your idea of evolution is false. You throw out a number like 10 million years.

Okay theoretically bacteria could turn into a fish and turn into an amphibian, and a reptile, a rodent, a mammal, and you.

If not in 10 million perhaps 10 billion. However, it's still a theory. No one knows that a billion or trillion or infinite amount of years can cause that much mutation. It is theory. That is a scientific fact that it is theory.

A big indicator is when people do what you do and throw out shots in the dark like one million ten million billions...etc.

We can observe the rapid nature of mutation, and multiply it over the approximate age of earth, and there is ample time for mutation, adaptation and speciation. Time doesn't cause mutation, it's simply an artifact of life.

Mutations and evolution continue even in a laboratory setting with no selective pressure applied.