Evolution in action

[NoMoreFaith]

Avoidance. You can't do it can you? You need to take the easy way out and rely on conjecture and faith that evolution is true and actually exists.

Your process is as invisible as you all claim God is, where is your evidence that it actually exists? Why would you trade one 'invisible' being for another?

Replace Evolution with Gravity. The sentence reads the same, yet you are not arguing against the theory of gravity.

What is gravity? Its invisible, we have "faith" it exists. Sure we can pull an apple and drop it, but God can quite easily move things at whim in order to create an ordered universe.

Where is your evidence for gravity beyond the observation you can drop things and they move by magic. Nobody has ever SEEN gravity.
How do you know gravity has always existed? You can't take "micro-gravity" and extrapolate that to planetary "macro-gravity".

please start with the one celled creature, with original conditions, and without outside intelligent beings help and show your theory and process is correct and actually exists.

Oh, so via time travel. Thats original, set an impossible standard for evidence and upon its failure invoke "Therefore God".

How do you even get up in the morning without faith your single cells are going to co-operate in such a manner as to move your body, because they aren't helping in the brain department.

Yes you do because theory and conjecture are not fact and are not observation. You have no way of verifying one thing evolutionists have claimed and all you are doing is the very thing you reject when God says it: 'Take my word for it and use faith.' (Something the Mormons do quite well)

I suggest you remember that gravity is not a fact by the same standards and try leaving your apartment via the window.

God says 'Here is what I have done, Here is a record for you so you know what i did and use faith for faith pleases me.'

You reject that from God YET use it for your own theory. Won't fly. Pony up the real evidence, prove your case or shut up about evolution forever. {and you cannot start with the end result, bring the real evidence starting from square one}

You're ranting.

You set an impossible standard and claim failure to achieve it is not real evidence.

Essentially, all knowledge becomes useless, including that of your own faith, because the standard is one of near infinite regress. You must show the initial particle in all instances. The first created matter.

You don't have it, you have the claims of goatherders.

What you really miss, is the application of probability. I absolutely agree with you that knowledge cannot ever be an absolute, merely degrees of probability.
Scientific methodology arms us with the ability to deduce to high probability about truth. Its not always right, and its always trying to correct itself.

Now compare this with a book you have no knowledge of its creation beyond personal private assertion, and using that text to form your framework about existence.

Now really.. .consider probability when it comes to truth.

If you were intellectually honest with yourself, you could never side with option 2 here.

[Minimalist]

Xtians are never intellectually honest.... Their god does not approve.

[Carnavon]

Welcome, btw, I don't recall having 'met' you before.

Thanks for the welcome. No, we have not “met” before. I visit the atheist forums from time to time (time permitting) . It is however a bit of a problem as I do not have the time to respond properly to all the comments. Each person actually deserves (…..well most) a proper reply. It is often interesting and stimulates research – which I enjoy. Your response was appreciated and enjoyed considering your comments on latest research and developments.

A hypothesis is based on observation and together those things are the beginning of science. Actually getting something to work always involves a hypothesis: it's the idea that something could work if you tried 'this'. Anyone who cites an experiment as 'proof' doesn't sufficently understand the scientific method. It's evidence, not proof. And recent duplications of the Miller-Urey experiment run with a more modern understanding of the likely composition of the ancient atmosphere produced a greater variety of complex organic molecules than the original experiment. And speaking of getting something to work, did you know that a couple of years ago, an entire bacterial genome was synthesized from scratch, placed in a denucleated cell, which then 'came to life' and was able to reproduce, thus pioneering the field of synthetic biology? That's what hypothesizing can lead to.

This would then agree with the following (stating that it was placed inside a cell, and not creating from scratch?)

“We now have a picture of how life may have developed under prebiotic conditions. One can easily envision a scenario in which the earth was bombarded by meteorites containing amino acids, organic compounds and fatty acids which had passed through the circular polarized light of an interstellar molecular cloud, then cyanamide and glycolaldehyde were mixed in a freshwater tide pool and allowed to sit overnight, glyceraldehyde was then added and allowed to incubate overnight before reacting with cyanoacetylene in another tide pool containing a buffered aqueous solution of pH 6.5, then phosphorylated with urea and ammonium salts under heat, dehydrated and rearranged-via intramolecular nucleophilic substitution before being allowed to cool and rehydrate and subsequently bathe in ultraviolet light (http://telicthoughts.com/the-current-sta...-research/)

:” But has the JCVI created ‘new life’and tested vitalism? Not really. The semi-synthetic mycobacterium is not changed from the wild state in any fundamental sense. In essence then, the "hardware" as I understand was used, hardly creating anything from the bare essentials.

Your understanding of the fossil record seems to be out-of-date. We have remarkably complete sequences for a variety of species, including humans, horses, and whales.

It might not be too much to ask to provide some facts on macro-evolution then? Not a fruit fly with ten wings, but remaining a fruit fly. It must develop into something totally different with at least some fossil record.

Further, despite all the research being done, no change in specie has been observed – bacteria remain bacteria, fruit flies remain fruit flies. There is no evidence that “evolution” takes place in these fast producing systems – adding new information to a system. Apparently all known mutations in plant and animal germ cell (that gets reproduced) are either neutral, harmful (i.e not contributing towards “improvement” in the specie and thus its ability to survive) or fatal.
It also seems that variation within a specie is limited and has “borders” that are never crossed – and if these borders are exceeded (by active manipulation) , the specie becomes sterile and dies out.

The problem also exists that “principle types” seem to appear suddenly and fully. No intermediate "phases" or intermediate forms between various types are detectable. (See the speculation re punctuated equilibrium)

You would have to agree with me that this information supports a creation model rather than an evolutionary model? Even if you do not agree, the evidence for a creation model is just as valid (and do not rely on astronomical odds to let it happen)

You should really look up 'quote-mining' to find out what most of us here think of the practice.

Yes, I did and the following seems to be a fairly acceptable definition: "The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining".
It seems then hat you may be mistaken in your claim as the items quoted are duly recognised (normally done in most papers when the work of others are recognised and not put forward as your own.

Before the Enlightenment that freed us from the tyranny of theocracy, the killing of babies was more than discussed.

You suggest that the practice is promoted in Christianity? I must have been sleeping in church then? I know that it is often practiced in pagan societies and now also on the modern altar of convenience. Do you condone the killing of babies (and lets be reasonable and old sickly folks as well - including maybe your parents ?)

The same as if it isn't a fluke. It's not where you came from that matters, it's where you're going.

Very true

The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. It tells us why life is so diverse. It doesn't tell us what we should do.

The argument and comment was exactly that – is the value of your life dependent on the judgement of others ? As there is apparently no “truth”, it is up to the moral values of society – and you can clearly see where that is leading to. On what grounds was Hitler wrong then when he had hundreds of thousands exterminated?

Saying that if we have value because God values us is the same thing as saying we have no intrinsic value.

Yes, I see your point, I believe - as far as non-Christians are concerned at least.
Do you submit then that your value can be determined by factors such as your value to others/society (possibly with a prior agenda) other than your own well-being- and especially if you are unable to defend your “rights”? Ot do you really have no value? (OK meat is expensive and you have a point there)

[Phil]

Further, despite all the research being done, no change in specie has been observed

For cryin out loud. Is it to much to ask for you to read the fucking OP for examples?

[Anomalocaris]

Despite all the research done, no creation of any species by any god has been observed.

[DeeTee]

Despite all the research done, no creation of any species by any god has been observed.

Yes it has but it was not observed by the people or beings evolutionists want.

What evolutionists have failed to realize is that the origin of the process and the historical claimed transitions have NEVER been observed by anyone.

One cannot take a fully developed species, add some chemicals then proclaim they have seen evolution in action. They have no way of verifying that proclamation nor showing that the process of evolution was actually responsible for said changes.

Every supposed evolutionary experiment does NOT exclude other sources from producing the same result. All you have is declaration not evidence.

Remember NOT 1 ancient civilization observed or recorded any evolutionary movement, modern evolutionists have NO ancient foundation to build upon. ALMOST ALL ancient civilizations used CREATION and we have ancient textual support for that fact.

Evolution has nothing and is not true.

[zebo-the-fat]

Despite all the research done, no creation of any species by any god has been observed.

Yes it has but it was not observed by the people or beings evolutionists want.

What evolutionists have failed to realize is that the origin of the process and the historical claimed transitions have NEVER been observed by anyone.

One cannot take a fully developed species, add some chemicals then proclaim they have seen evolution in action. They have no way of verifying that proclamation nor showing that the process of evolution was actually responsible for said changes.

Every supposed evolutionary experiment does NOT exclude other sources from producing the same result. All you have is declaration not evidence.

Remember NOT 1 ancient civilization observed or recorded any evolutionary movement, modern evolutionists have NO ancient foundation to build upon. ALMOST ALL ancient civilizations used CREATION and we have ancient textual support for that fact.

Evolution has nothing and is not true.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Thor]

Further, despite all the research being done, no change in specie has been observed

Bullshit. I posted this already, but I guess you didn't bother to look at it:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

You would have to agree with me that this information supports a creation model rather than an evolutionary model?

If I was an imbecile, perhaps.

Even if you do not agree, the evidence for a creation model is just as valid

And your evidence that all life was created by an all powerful deity is.....?

(and do not rely on astronomical odds to let it happen)

I would say the odds of a deity existing are pretty astronomical.

On what grounds was Hitler wrong then when he had hundreds of thousands exterminated?

So you need a deity to tell you that killing innocent people is wrong. Couldn't figure that out on your own, huh?

---

What evolutionists have failed to realize is that the origin of the process and the historical claimed transitions have NEVER been observed by anyone.

Good grief! First of all, we have transitional fossils! I'll say it again.... WE HAVE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS! And even if we didn't, we don't need to observe speciation to know evolution has occurred! Take some college courses and educate yourself!

All you have is declaration not evidence.

Hmmmm.... sounds an awful lot like you're describing your Babble.

Remember NOT 1 ancient civilization observed or recorded any evolutionary movement

You expect ancient civilizations to have recorded evolutionary changes? What an absolutely ludicrous assumption.

, modern evolutionists have NO ancient foundation to build upon.

So what? Modern medicine has no ancient foundation for organ transplants. Your point?

ALMOST ALL ancient civilizations used CREATION and we have ancient textual support for that fact.

Yes, because ancient people had no scientific understanding of the world around them. And you want to throw your lot in with ignorant goatherders who thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Evolution has nothing and is not true.

Were you by any chance home schooled?

[Cyberman]

Evolution has nothing and is not true.

Except when it leads to technology that works and which we all of us, including you, rely on for our very survival:

[popeyespappy]

Back to the OP....

Ring Species