What are your views on evolution?

[Tubs]

You are doing it again. Evidence of God has nothing to do with evidence of evolution. Also absence of evidence, is not evidence itself.

Tenets of science? Observation, Falsification, Repeatable Testing, and Predictions. I guess you knew this already.

Science is just a method of discovery.

But don't worry, you stick with Natural Selection!

It's like talking to a brick wall. If you can't see how the Quranic creation story of humans is problematic in regards to evolution, I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[KingKhanWC]

Changing my tune for what? You aren't making any sense.
You only quote professors when it's convenient for you. I could quote 100's of profs who agree with me but you'll dismiss it.

I didn't dispute that traps were impossible, it was mainly a response to you saying endurance wasn't necessarily, which was nonsensical.

You're moving the goalposts now. Let's stick to the process of evolution without worrying about the exact geographical location. Besides, the Out of Africa hypothesis means that our early humans in question didn't leave African until far more recently, when they became Homo sapiens. Accuracy isn't a luxury we have when looking at fossils. Time frames are used in geological, paleontological, and even archaeological (even when it's only a few thousand years), so enough of that.

Some work may have been published, but not enough if you fail to see the truth of human evolution. Why don't you use common sense and listen to Ibn Khaldun when he mentions humans getting their intelligence from old world monkeys.

No, it was relevant. You mentioned some reprehensible, racist things Darwin said. I showed you similarly racist things in a hadith, and you refuse to comment.

You can't even put up a good case against evolution. Carry on with the ad hominem, shows who's losing the debate.

Do carry on citing academics who make one quote 'in your favour', and ignore the multitude of academics who go against you. Also, laughably, Prof Bunn mentions 'early ancestors', which shows that he's against you. Please do read the whole article next time.

I have only said the evidence for human evolution is not enough for me to believe. So me citing people who are rubbishing your nonsense is only because you were so sure.

You haven't wrote anything which has made me think differently. You can believe you are winning the argument as it helps you feel better but again I dont have an argument apart from the not enough evidence which we both know is true.

I gave you a quote from the BBC which stated

"Exactly why and when our ancestors stood upright and started moving around on two feet is still shrouded in mystery"

This is what most experts on the subjects conclude but you think you know better lol. It's best to accept the above quote.

Anyway I have no further comment on this thread. If you want to believe your ancestors were apes , I wont argue with that !

 

[KingKhanWC]

It's like talking to a brick wall. If you can't see how the Quranic creation story of humans is problematic in regards to evolution, I have nothing more to say to you.

You know nothing of the Quranic story of humans lol.

Start a thread and show your ignorance again.

 

[Technics 1210]

It's like talking to a brick wall. If you can't see how the Quranic creation story of humans is problematic in regards to evolution, I have nothing more to say to you.

Once again, invoking religion in a discussion where religion is completely irrelevant. Like I said, you are only doing this so to appease your decision to abandon religion in favour of Darwin. I got news for you, you're not going to find any closure or solace here.

Happy evolving!

 

[Tubs]

I have only said the evidence for human evolution is not enough for me to believe. So me citing people who are rubbishing your nonsense is only because you were so sure.

You haven't wrote anything which has made me think differently. You can believe you are winning the argument as it helps you feel better but again I dont have an argument apart from the not enough evidence which we both know is true.

I gave you a quote from the BBC which stated

"Exactly why and when our ancestors stood upright and started moving around on two feet is still shrouded in mystery"

This is what most experts on the subjects conclude but you think you know better lol. It's best to accept the above quote.

Anyway I have no further comment on this thread. If you want to believe your ancestors were apes , I wont argue with that !

You think that quote proves your position? Laughable. I never claimed that the reasons I mentioned were absolute, only that they were explanations for what actually happened.

You won't have your mind changed if your mind is closed. If you want to even attempt to open it, read the scientific literature on human evolution. 'Not enough evidence' is not an argument, especially when you obviously haven't looked at it.

Yes, our ancestors were apes, like our ancestors were Hindus before Islam took over.

You know nothing of the Quranic story of humans lol.

Start a thread and show your ignorance again.

https://quran.com/3/59

 

[Tubs]

Once again, invoking religion in a discussion where religion is completely irrelevant. Like I said, you are only doing this so to appease your decision to abandon religion in favour of Darwin. I got news for you, you're not going to find any closure or solace here.

Happy evolving!

I don't need closure, I am not 'angry' at God, that would be a silly thing to do, as I don't believe in God.

I didn't leave because of 'Darwinism', I left Islam before I knew much about evolution.

While you have been arrogant throughout, you haven't been nearly as personal as the other poster, which I commend you for.

Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

 

[Technics 1210]

https://quran.com/3/59

For the purpose of readers, the verse cited above is as follows :

Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was.

I would like to point out, that we are all made of star-dust, elements created in the Sun.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-we-really-made-of-stardust.html

'It is totally 100% true: nearly all the elements in the human body were made in a star and many have come through several supernovas.'

 

[Technics 1210]

You know nothing of the Quranic story of humans lol.

Start a thread and show your ignorance again.

I agree, from what I am reading, he (like many) has probably never read the Qur'an end to end in a language he understands, and is simply quoting out of context verses found on Atheists sites. Though he does concede that the verses could be metaphors. Strange but true.

Pity he hasn't read the Bible, which has evolution all over it.

 

[Tubs]

For the purpose of readers, the verse cited above is as follows :



I would like to point out, that we are all made of star-dust, elements created in the Sun.

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-we-really-made-of-stardust.html

Same elements isn't equal to being created from dusts.

That's definitely in the realm of mental gymnastics.

 

[Technics 1210]

Same elements isn't equal to being created from dusts.
.

And same DNA sequence doesn't mean we evolved from primates.

Though this wasn't the point, every element (barring Hydrogen) on Earth comes from stars; hence we are all made of stardust. This is a fact.

 

[Tubs]

And same DNA sequence doesn't mean we evolved from primates.

Though this wasn't the point, every element on Earth comes from stars; hence we are all made of stardust. This is a fact.

That’s a terrible comparison, and you’re wrong again. We didn’t evolve from primates, we are primates.

Yes that is a fact(regarding the origin of elements), from nuclear fusion I believe.

My response to your confusion about me mentioning metaphors. It just seems that most Muslims state that the Quran is the perfect word of God. But if you view some verses metaphorically, then good for you, it seems a much better approach than a literalist one.

What was your point about the Bible by the way? I think it’s equally as wrong as the Quran if it’s any conciliation.

 

[Technics 1210]

What was your point about the Bible by the way? I think it’s equally as wrong as the Quran if it’s any conciliation.

Of course you would say that, your argument is one from ignorance. Now don't pretend you have read the Bible.

And no, we are not primates, primates have higher number of chromosome pairs.

And stop talking about Nuclear Fusion, unless you disagree that all elements barring hydrogen are produces within a star, fancy words won't change your lack of understanding.

Genesis 1:25
God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:11
Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

Genesis 1:12
The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:24
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

Genesis 6:20
"Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.

Genesis 7:14
they and every beast after its kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creeps on the earth after its kind, and every bird after its kind, all sorts of birds.

Now I know you have no idea of the difference between Macro and Micro evolution, but after you look it up, you will realise the above verses refer to Micro Evolution. In case you do not understand, micro evolution is evolution of a specie within one phylum. For example, take all the breeds of dogs in the world that evolved over time, they're still dogs.

 

[Tubs]

Of course you would say that, your argument is one from ignorance. Now don't pretend you have read the Bible.

And no, we are not primates, primates have higher number of chromosome pairs.



Now I know you have no idea of the difference between Macro and Micro evolution, but after you look it up, you will realise the above verses refer to Micro Evolution. In case you do not understand, micro evolution is evolution of a specie within one phylum. For example, take all the breeds of dogs in the world that evolved over time, they're still dogs.

Woah, calm down there sunshine.

I am aware of this ‘kind’ business, actually, you just worded your Bible criticism badly.

And I do know the difference between micro and macro evolution, I even have mentioned them in this thread, so quit the condescension. Yes the Bible is wrong, what did you expect me to say? ‘Kind’ isn’t a term which would fit into the old system of Linnaean Taxonomy, or the newer cladistics method.

And I already told you why the number of pairs is less in humans, quit the wilful ignorance will you.

 

[Technics 1210]

Woah, calm down there sunshine.

I am aware of this ‘kind’ business, actually, you just worded your Bible criticism badly.

And I do know the difference between micro and macro evolution, I even have mentioned them in this thread, so quit the condescension. Yes the Bible is wrong, what did you expect me to say? ‘Kind’ isn’t a term which would fit into the old system of Linnaean Taxonomy, or the newer cladistics method.

And I already told you why the number of pairs is less in humans, quit the wilful ignorance will you.

Kind is referring to Specie to be blunt.

I didn't criticize the Bible, you did.

No you didn't tell me anything, you just posted a video.

I got to hand it to you, you are indeed both random and selective by nature.

 

[Tubs]

Kind is referring to Specie to be blunt.

I didn't criticize the Bible, you did.

No you didn't tell me anything, you just posted a video.

I got to hand it to you, you are indeed both random and selective by nature.

Well it may be an archaic, ignorant idea of a species.

You brought up the Bible, probably to deflect from the Quran, nice try.

And yes, I told you that the chromosomes fused together (the video is of a person who knows far more than you about evolution).

Ooh, did you think of that all by yourself?

Looks like you’re making no arguments, ignoring irrefutable genetic evidence, and overall just very confused and out of toe depth. I guess we’re done here.

 

[Technics 1210]

You brought up the Bible, probably to deflect from the Quran, nice try.

Do you actually read or just post random stuff? Deflect from the Quran? You got owned, and came out with Nuclear Fusion, which didn't change the fact I stated that we are made up of elements created in the stars, barring hydrogen. We are literally made of star dust which is compatible with the Quranic verse YOU, yes YOU, cited above. I bet you Googled stardust, couldn't find a counter, realised the statement is correct, but read nuclear Fusion - and had to slip it in! Oh my!

I merely posted 2 posts with references to verses from 2 different divine revelations to demonstrate:

A] The Quranic verse YOU cited above is 100% compatible with modern science both literally and metaphorically. Take your pick.

B] The Bible, another divine revelation from the same God who revealed the Quran, is also compatible with Evolution, albeit Micro.

These were just 2 examples, from many. Point being, you can shout all you want that divine revelations are from the Iron age, and that religion is incompatible with evolution (although not relevant to the discussion), but the reality is that said books are considered guidance which fit comfortably with current human knowledge.

Now you come out with the biggest pile of kak by comparing Nuclear Fusion with Chromosome fusion, when the later result in 100% death.

Have a good night Mr RM+NS!

 

[Tubs]

Do you actually read or just post random stuff? Deflect from the Quran? You got owned, and came out with Nuclear Fusion, which didn't change the fact I stated that we are made up of elements created in the stars, barring hydrogen. We are literally made of star dust which is compatible with the Quranic verse YOU, yes YOU, cited above. I bet you Googled stardust, couldn't find a counter, realised the statement is correct, but read nuclear Fusion - and had to slip it in! Oh my!

I merely posted 2 posts with references to verses from 2 different divine revelations to demonstrate:

A] The Quranic verse YOU cited above is 100% compatible with modern science both literally and metaphorically. Take your pick.

B] The Bible, another divine revelation from the same God who revealed the Quran, is also compatible with Evolution, albeit Micro.

These were just 2 examples, from many. Point being, you can shout all you want that divine revelations are from the Iron age, and that religion is incompatible with evolution (although not relevant to the discussion), but the reality is that said books are considered guidance which fit comfortably with current human knowledge.

Now you come out with the biggest pile of kak by comparing Nuclear Fusion with Chromosome fusion, when the later result in 100% death.

Have a good night Mr RM+NS!

I learned about nuclear fusion in GCSE Physics, try harder, Nostradamus. Anyway, to say we are 'made' of stardust is incredibly disingenuous, and is obviously mental gymnastics on your part. First of all, no guarantee that dust on the earth has all the constituents which 'stardust' does. Even if it did, we are not composed of dust, that is a farcical statement. Having the same constituents as dust, is not equal to being made of it. But you won't accept that because it's in the Quran, ridiculous.

So to say the verse is 100% compatible with modern science is a flat out lie. Find me evidence that we were made from dust. Again, humans being created from dust does not coincide with evolution, neither does Adam being 60 cubits tall. Show me the evidence of a human, or early human, nearly that big. You can't.

Oh, the whole 'supports microevolution' argument is ridiculous. Micro and macro evolution are one in the same, just over an evolutionary time scale. So if it just supports 'microevolution', then that isn't good enough. Look here: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:20-25&version=NIV
This 'kind' nonsense now seems to be referring to whether it's avian, terrestrial, aquatic, etc. That is not sufficient within taxonomy or cladistics, as it wouldn't account for amphibians to give one example. Also, it's rich that you cite the Bible when it's widely regarded as a corruption of God's word in Islam. Talk about clutching at straws!

https://www.futurity.org/uk-scientists-less-religious-1937692-2/

Regarding the compatibility of religion with science, more specifically evolution, here it states that despite 18% of the UK population not believing in God, 45% of UK scientists don't believe in God, which is a huge over-representation. It also said that biologists are 2.5x more likely not to go to a religious event. Whether it's to keep up appearances (which is a weak thing to do), or personal choice, it definitely shows a rift between religion and science, and weakens your unfounded claim that the scripture fit with current knowledge. Why don't you go back to my older post and look at the inaccuracies in the Quran.

Another straw man by you. I never compared chromosomal fusion and nuclear fusion, congratulations. Also, regarding a factual error you made a few posts ago that you keep making, it obviously shows you know nothing of Zoology. You keep saying that all primates have 24 pairs of chromosomes, that's false. Primates are a huge group, ring-tailed lemurs for example have 28 pairs, baboons 21, and obviously, humans have 23. Your argument should have been that great apes have 24 pairs (barring humans). Please learn about zoology before commenting on it. And chromosomal fusion did happen, deny it all you want. You got owned with this fact, but you keep flat-out denying it, which is very pathetic.

Resorting to terrible 'insults'? Go play with My Little Pony Buraq, who 'leaps but doesn't fly despite having wings' according to another poster.

I am done now, I just had to prove you wrong once more.

 

[Technics 1210]

I learned about nuclear fusion in GCSE Physics.

I stopped reading here.

GCSE? Well, now I know what the problem is here.

All the best.

 

[Tubs]

I stopped reading here.

GCSE? Well, now I know what the problem is here.

All the best.

Don’t take my word for it, listen to all the PhD academics who know that humans are primates.

And you did read further, you just know you can’t refute anything. Nice cop out!

 

[The_Odd_One]

Evolution is not a theory, it is a fact observed in nature. Ever wondered, why you, a dog, a cat, a mouse, etc all have the same number of eyes, ears, nose, and legs? Why do we have a tailbone? Why everything in us is 90% similar to the Chimpanzees?

Most of the people have a very weak understanding of the vastness of time. Billions of years is a very very long time and evolution is very slow. For this reason, you will not see species evolving in one or even 100 generations. If you start talking in millions of years then you may see some effects of evolution but even a million years is nothing as compared to a billion years.

All life started from a single cell organism that as a coincidence formed more than 3 billion years ago. We do not know how all the essential components fused together to make that cell but researchers are trying hard to simulate it in the lab and I fully believe one day we will be able to find an answer.

 

[pillionrider]

If religious people want to believe their religious books, that's fine.

It's comical though when they try to prove the authors of these texts knew all current and future scientific thoughts. You have some wannabe-Deepak Chopras here, trying to be too clever for their half-wits.

 

[Robert]

He did mean humans

He also wrote "The Western nations of Europe . . . now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors [that they] stand at the summit of civilization. . . . The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world. "

I would ignore the unscientific “social Darwinism” which was typical of the aspic of the age Darwin was born into, and focus instead on the science of the modern synthesis of the scientific ideas of Darwin and Wallace.

 

[Pak Warrior]

I believe in microevoultion, where species adapt and change to better suit their survival and environment.
I dont believe in macro evolution where one animal becomes a different animal. Isn't the theory of evolution, still a theory because the missing link hasn't been found between humans and chimps. Bones and fossils just show that something was once living and is now dead. It doesnt show that something ever changed

 

[PakLFC]

My ancestors were not apes!

 

[ElRaja]

The key word here is mechanisms. With laws, mechanisms are clear and predictable, whether it be Gravity, Electromagnetism, etc.

The Theory of Darwinian Evolution (note I used the term Darwinian) is based on mechanics Random Mutation and Natural Selection - is a hypothesis. RM+NS can neither be tested nor can provide any predictions what so ever because inherently the main mechanism of change is random. If I ask you when the next DNA mutation will occur in a specie, you cannot pin point the answer, other than say, it will happen sometime. This is not a prediction, it's a guess, because describing how something looks, doesn’t explain how it works, meaning, tautology is not science.

The question is not whether evolution is true or not, it is clear evolution does occur, change over time does occur, the questions are how and why – what are the mechanisms that bring about change and how? Natural Selection? NS does not bring about change in DNA and is simply death. Random mutations? All forms of cancer known to man is the result of random mutations resulting in DNA transcription errors, but Darwinists want us to believe that some random mutations are successful - lucky!

All the evidence cited in favour of RM+NS, whether fossils in multiple stratas, virus’, identical DNA sequences, resistance etc – do not in any way confirm RM+NS. All the evidence simply reveals is change over time.

Darwinian evolution is a political ideology. A process that is considered random and blind without purpose bodes well with the antithesis view. Therefore, phrases like Adaptive Mutagenesis are discarded, because purposeful mutations do not sit with the antithesis view and completely undermine RM. Take resistance for example, is resistance the result of a random mutation or a purposeful mutation leading to adaptation?

People seem to forget that during the days of Darwin DNA was unknown, and as more knowledge is gained on DNA, the greater challenges Darwinian Evolution faces. This is why in order to understand evolution, change over time, it's vital to understand DNA.

There are no axioms in Biology, not a single one. The only truth in life/biology, is death. This is why I am more inclined towards Teleology as it provides an alternative - and frankly logical view – than it just happens.

ok, from a statistical point of view i am happy to accept random mutations leading to survival adaptations which may appear as designed, if you're not i wont argue with you on it.

but i dont agree with ur last point, your whole premise was built on the fact that the darwinist theory of evolution does not provide specific predictions about the future, what then makes you inclined towards a theological answer which provides even less specific utility imo.

also, as far as discrete specific predictions go, all of quantum physics is based on the premise, which Einstein hated greatly, that you cannot specifically predict with certainty anything on a quantum scale, just probabilities. so even from a hard scienve pov, you do not always obtain discrete predictions.

 

[Robert]

I believe in microevoultion, where species adapt and change to better suit their survival and environment.
I dont believe in macro evolution where one animal becomes a different animal. Isn't the theory of evolution, still a theory because the missing link hasn't been found between humans and chimps. Bones and fossils just show that something was once living and is now dead. It doesnt show that something ever changed

So where did the later forms come from? Did God wipe out the dinosaurs and repopulate Earth with the Pleistocene megafauna? Then wipe them out and replace them with modern animals?

 

[Robert]

I believe in microevoultion, where species adapt and change to better suit their survival and environment.
I dont believe in macro evolution where one animal becomes a different animal. Isn't the theory of evolution, still a theory because the missing link hasn't been found between humans and chimps. Bones and fossils just show that something was once living and is now dead. It doesnt show that something ever changed

Oh, and chimps and humans had a common ancestor.

 

[Technics 1210]

So where did the later forms come from? Did God wipe out the dinosaurs and repopulate Earth with the Pleistocene megafauna? Then wipe them out and replace them with modern animals?

Sounds likes the circle of life to me.

But sticking with DToE, if Natural Selection wiped out the dinosaurs, what gave rise to new species? What mechanics, if not God?

 

[Technics 1210]

Oh, and chimps and humans had a common ancestor.

If we are to accept that humans evolved from primates, why is it racist to call a human a monkey given there is *alleged* evidence that a human had a common ancestor?

 

[Robert]

If we are to accept that humans evolved from primates, why is it racist to call a human a monkey given there is *alleged* evidence that a human had a common ancestor?

Because racist white people think black people are subhuman and that whiteness is somehow the more evolved state.

 

[Robert]

Sounds likes the circle of life to me.

But sticking with DToE, if Natural Selection wiped out the dinosaurs, what gave rise to new species? What mechanics, if not God?

What’s “the circle of life” and how did it replace the Prehistoric megafauna such as the giant ground sloths, mammoths and sabre toothed tigers with smaller creatures?

A meteorite strike on the Yucatan Peninsula caused climate change - the Earth’s climate cooled and that wiped out the dinosaurs. Small mammals survived the cataclysm because they were warm-blooded and had fur and needed less food. The crocodiles survived too because they lived in water which holds its temperature better than land, though over time they shrank in size as food supplies declined. Smaller feathered dinosaurs could keep warm and evolved into birds, which did not exist in the Cretaceous.

Over sixty million years these small mammals speciated into the forms we see today - there is evidence that that whales and dolphins had a shrew-like ancestor, for instance, and there were intermediate forms of early whales with legs which were likely amphibious.

Flowers turned up about 20 million years ago. Old T. rex never saw a flower, he was gone before they evolved.

 

[Pak Warrior]

Oh, and chimps and humans had a common ancestor.

Where is the evidence of the missing link that shows when a chimp turned into a human? I dont recall a single body or fossil that proves it. If chimps turned into humans, why are there still chimps? Are they only the weak or ******** chimps? Darwin's natural selection should have wiped them out because they didnt evolve and shouldnt be able to survive....but there still here.

 

[Pak Warrior]

So where did the later forms come from? Did God wipe out the dinosaurs and repopulate Earth with the Pleistocene megafauna? Then wipe them out and replace them with modern animals?

Where did life come from? The Big Bang theory doesnt make sense. How does a universe full of NOTHING suddenly create something?

 

[Technics 1210]

What’s “the circle of life” and how did it replace the Prehistoric megafauna such as the giant ground sloths, mammoths and sabre toothed tigers with smaller creatures?

A meteorite strike on the Yucatan Peninsula caused climate change - the Earth’s climate cooled and that wiped out the dinosaurs. Small mammals survived the cataclysm because they were warm-blooded and had fur and needed less food. The crocodiles survived too because they lived in water which holds its temperature better than land, though over time they shrank in size as food supplies declined. Smaller feathered dinosaurs could keep warm and evolved into birds, which did not exist in the Cretaceous.

Over sixty million years these small mammals speciated into the forms we see today - there is evidence that that whales and dolphins had a shrew-like ancestor, for instance, and there were intermediate forms of early whales with legs which were likely amphibious.

Flowers turned up about 20 million years ago. Old T. rex never saw a flower, he was gone before they evolved.

Circle of life, is life, then death, rinse and repeat.

What you are describing above is evidence of change over time, purposeful adaptation to the new environment, not evidence of Random Mutation or Natural Selection.

 

[Technics 1210]

Where did life come from? The Big Bang theory doesnt make sense. How does a universe full of NOTHING suddenly create something?

This is a separate question to be fair, covered by Abiogenesis, but ardent Darwinists/Athiests attempt to falsify Theism by using DToE simply because they do not understand DToE and its attempt to explain diversity of life rather than the creation of life.

 

[Pak Warrior]

This is a separate question to be fair, covered by Abiogenesis, but ardent Darwinists/Athiests attempt to falsify Theism by using DToE simply because they do not understand DToE and its attempt to explain diversity of life rather than the creation of life.

I feel like Evolution has become it's own religion of sort. and people believe it because other scientists that they assume are much smarter than them "say this, or say that"...there are holes in carbon dating, the big bang theory. proof of macroevolution, planetary or cosmic evolution, chemical evolution. These things are more religiously believed than scientifically. The only type of evolution that can be observed and scientifically proven is microevolution.

 

[Technics 1210]

I feel like Evolution has become it's own religion of sort. and people believe it because other scientists that they assume are much smarter than them "say this, or say that"...there are holes in carbon dating, the big bang theory. proof of macroevolution, planetary or cosmic evolution, chemical evolution. These things are more religiously believed than scientifically. The only type of evolution that can be observed and scientifically proven is microevolution.

Wholeheartedly agree, DToE is a religion. 95% of its believers do not understand DToE or the mechanics. These people are no different to the blind faithers of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Why do you think Darwin was anointed for sainthood and revered so much? For once, Atheists believed they had concrete evidence which falsified Theism - unfortunately, chance, time, and matter do not suffice. Theists are accused of invoking the God of Gaps, whereas Atheists are accused of invoking the God of Chance.

Micro Evolution is fact. We see change over time no doubt about it, but DToEs expand on this fact and produce fairytales which are commonly known as macro evolution. Though from a religious perspective, the books of guidance do not contradict evolution, and from the perspective of science, the mechanics of evolution are unsubstantiated, misunderstood, and unproven.

Here's something interesting. DNA is biological information, and the variation of DNA results in variety of life, however in term of Physics, the known laws cannot produce a strand of DNA - because not only DNA is complex, DNA has its own error correction mechanism, which by definition, must be intelligent because forces of the universe do not make choices.

 

[Pak Warrior]

Wholeheartedly agree, DToE is a religion. 95% of its believers do not understand DToE or the mechanics. These people are no different to the blind faithers of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc. Why do you think Darwin was anointed for sainthood and revered so much? For once, Atheists believed they had concrete evidence which falsified Theism - unfortunately, chance, time, and matter do not suffice. Theists are accused of invoking the God of Gaps, whereas Atheists are accused of invoking the God of Chance.

Micro Evolution is fact. We see change over time no doubt about it, but DToEs expand on this fact and produce fairytales which are commonly known as macro evolution. Though from a religious perspective, the books of guidance do not contradict evolution, and from the perspective of science, the mechanics of evolution are unsubstantiated, misunderstood, and unproven.

Here's something interesting. DNA is biological information, and the variation of DNA results in variety of life, however in term of Physics, the known laws cannot produce a strand of DNA - because not only DNA is complex, DNA has its own error correction mechanism, which by definition, must be intelligent because forces of the universe do not make choices.

Yup, many have brain washed into this DToE religion without realizing it. Textbooks, school curriculum, and the repeated drum of scientific tests have caused many to lose their Theistic beliefs in a very smooth and cunning manner. Science is great, but it has its limits and definitely doesnt have all the answers. The matter of DNA is very interesting, your point is profound and deep. It would require people to think, instead of regurgitating the same scientific jargon we have all been force fed. How can a universe full of randomness create something so intelligent and complex as DNA with its own. error correction? Truly amazing. It points the Creator, quite clearly.

 

[Technics 1210]

Yup, many have brain washed into this DToE religion without realizing it. Textbooks, school curriculum, and the repeated drum of scientific tests have caused many to lose their Theistic beliefs in a very smooth and cunning manner. Science is great, but it has its limits and definitely doesnt have all the answers. The matter of DNA is very interesting, your point is profound and deep. It would require people to think, instead of regurgitating the same scientific jargon we have all been force fed. How can a universe full of randomness create something so intelligent and complex as DNA with its own. error correction? Truly amazing. It points the Creator, quite clearly.

Science is a method of discovery and is limited by observation. Science is not the truth.

As for DNA, DNA is the final nail in the coffin for DToE. My two favorite quotes with respect to DNA :

At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt"....... I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; "Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities"; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4

It is proof that someone with infinitely higher technical ability than ourselves, is responsible for implanting a DNA message into the cell of everything alive in the universe which says "Hello, I am your Creator".

You may enjoy this site : http://s8int.com/dna1.html

More on DNA error checking :

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-damage-repair-mechanisms-for-maintaining-dna-344

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...tructure-of-dna/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair

 

[Pak Warrior]

Science is a method of discovery and is limited by observation. Science is not the truth.

As for DNA, DNA is the final nail in the coffin for DToE. My two favorite quotes with respect to DNA :





You may enjoy this site : http://s8int.com/dna1.html

More on DNA error checking :

https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-damage-repair-mechanisms-for-maintaining-dna-344

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

https://www.khanacademy.org/science...tructure-of-dna/a/dna-proofreading-and-repair

Thank you bro, glad to know we share same beliefs in a age where people are less and less believing in anything. I will browse these sites and see what else I can learn. Take care

 

[Tubs]

The same user who told my criticism of the religious view of abiogenesis isn't a refutation of evolution because they're 2 distinct things, is now using abiogenesis to suggest that evolution isn't real.

Also, citing one book isn't an argument. That book isn't the consensus of the scientific community.

Just scientists are working on a solution for abiogenesis (and therefore don't have a concrete theory yet) doesn't mean that you should default to 'therefore God'. Also, the 'DNA is a language, therefore God' argument has been refuted many times over. Another popular argument is that DNA is analogous to a programming language, which again, is false. Would DNA be a static or dynamic language? Strong or weak? Interpreted or compiled? What mathematical foundations is it based upon? Is it a low-level or high-level language?

Again, just because it's currently an active research topic, defaulting to 'God did it' is naive and disingenuous. After the science has been worked out, find a way to reconcile it with your God. When the mechanisms are figured out, by all means say that God orchestrated/oversaw it. It is unwise, however, to say that God just poofed DNA into existence.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Flukists have no answer. They come to the debate like a fly to honey when DNA is mentioned,
ramble on with their emotive and ignorant rhetoric, but cannot, and will not, produce evidence to support their bankrupt ideology. Reason? There is no evidence. Nothing that is repeatable, testable, and falsifiable. Hence their knee jerk reactions. DNA absolutely creams and destroys DToE, but proponents of DToE continue with their fairy-tales - a frog turns into a magic prince! JACKANORY STORY!

Their scientific explanation? It just happens. What an insult.

Scientists working on a solution (Solution is a term used to deal with a problem, in this case, improbability) for abiogenesis is known as faith, they work in hope! The irony is lost on those who seek appeasement for their insecure decisions for abandoning faith in God.

 

[Tubs]

Keep strawmanning evolution. 99% of scientists are against you, but of course you know better.

You keep bringing it up as 'Darwin's Theory of Evolution' when the understanding has gotten much better since the 19th century- really shows how little you know on this topic.

And no one ever said 'it just happens', another strawman. There are numerous hypotheses on abiogenesis, and due to computation becoming more prevalent in the field, I hope to do some research on the field too. I'll be sure to send you a pre-release to review since you have all the answers.

The only one who is insecure is you. You have to do mental gymnastics to convince yourself God did everything, and you are the one who always brings up people who 'abandoned faith'. Are you not aware that there are people who are brought up irreligious? And it really is rich that you think saying scientists will eventually figure out the answer is equivalent to faith in God. Science has achieved so many things, which are verifiable and replicable, what's God's tally again?

 

[Robert]

I feel like Evolution has become it's own religion of sort. and people believe it because other scientists that they assume are much smarter than them "say this, or say that"...there are holes in carbon dating, the big bang theory. proof of macroevolution, planetary or cosmic evolution, chemical evolution. These things are more religiously believed than scientifically. The only type of evolution that can be observed and scientifically proven is microevolution.

But study will get you closer to the understanding of those scientists.

It would be more correct to say that evolution theory is a synthesis of theories and hypotheses. We accept it because it is the most parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life and the different forms existing in the fossil record. It has stood for 160 years and been tweaked slightly in that time but we have a pretty good idea of what happened and when.

There is mathematical proof for Big Bang and hard evidence to support it. Of course we cannot go back and check, but it is an elegant description of the origin of the Universe which has withstood peer review and attack from rival theory.

The scientist is never afraid to say “I don’t know”.

 

[Pak Warrior]

But study will get you closer to the understanding of those scientists.

It would be more correct to say that evolution theory is a synthesis of theories and hypotheses. We accept it because it is the most parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life and the different forms existing in the fossil record. It has stood for 160 years and been tweaked slightly in that time but we have a pretty good idea of what happened and when.

There is mathematical proof for Big Bang and hard evidence to support it. Of course we cannot go back and check, but it is an elegant description of the origin of the Universe which has withstood peer review and attack from rival theory.

The scientist is never afraid to say “I don’t know”.

Thank You for admitting that Scientists "...Don't Know"

 

[Technics 1210]

Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism

Demanding a New Theory

A controversial letter to Nature in 2014 signaled the mounting concern, however slow and cautious, among thoughtful professional biologists. Other works by atheist authors like “What Darwin Got Wrong” and “Mind and Cosmos” find “fatal flaws” in the theory and assert it is “almost certainly false.”

Another project, The Third Way, seeks to avoid a false choice between divine intervention (which it outright rejects) and the Neo-Darwinian model (which it finds unsupported in the face of modern molecular theory) while presenting evidence to improve evolution theory beyond Neo-Darwinism. Some even believe billions of years have not been adequate for Darwinian theory to accomplish current complexity, as the theory currently exists.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/one-third-biologists-now-question-darwinism/

 

[Technics 1210]

But study will get you closer to the understanding of those scientists.

It would be more correct to say that evolution theory is a synthesis of theories and hypotheses. We accept it because it is the most parsimonious explanation for the diversity of life and the different forms existing in the fossil record. It has stood for 160 years and been tweaked slightly in that time but we have a pretty good idea of what happened and when.

There is mathematical proof for Big Bang and hard evidence to support it. Of course we cannot go back and check, but it is an elegant description of the origin of the Universe which has withstood peer review and attack from rival theory.

The scientist is never afraid to say “I don’t know”.

The original Darwinian theory is long dead. How can it stand 160 years, when it is now - like you say - a synthesis of theories and hypotheses.

160 years on, DToE has been falsified year after year as more and more evidence surfaces.

 

[Robert]

Thank You for admitting that Scientists "...Don't Know"

Only religious people have certainty. Scientists apply models which are refined or discarded as new evidence emerges.

 

[Tubs]

Why One-Third Of Biologists Now Question Darwinism



https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/16/one-third-biologists-now-question-darwinism/

I can quote people too, Theodosius Dobzhansky, an Eastern Orthodox Christian said 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution'.

The original Darwinian theory is long dead. How can it stand 160 years, when it is now - like you say - a synthesis of theories and hypotheses.

160 years on, DToE has been falsified year after year as more and more evidence surfaces.

Natural selection has not been falsified, what a flat-out lie. Natural selection, population genetics have been combined into a unified theory, Modern Synthesis. MS has further been developed into evolutionary development biology. If you knew anything about evolution, you'd know this. You just don't want to accept this because you have preconceived beliefs.

 

[Technics 1210]

Only religious people have certainty. Scientists apply models which are refined or discarded as new evidence emerges.

Incorrect friend, religious people have faith.

 

[Technics 1210]

Natural Selection is death. It does not add any new information to DNA. This is a fact, thus it cannot be a mechanism that influences change to DNA, thus diversity.

Move on.

 

[Tubs]

You obviously don't understand evolution, or natural selection, at all. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Technics 1210]

It just happens.

This is the story folks. Don't take it from me, take it from a person who wasn't aware of the tenets of science and had to copy and paste posts in an attempt to bolster what is already a bankrupt, and extinct theory.

Mention DNA and it goes emotive, as seen above.

Love it.

 

[Tubs]

Yet another strawman.

I asked you to post the tenets of science, to be clear, as you weren't demonstrating that you knew them at all. That's lie #1.

I never copy and pasted, I used academic research to cover my point. Lie#2.

It is not an 'extinct theory', that doesn't even make sense Lie #3.

Not being emotive, just highlighting that you know nothing about evolution. Lie #4.

Natural selection isn't 'death', it is simply the fact that those animals with advantageous traits will be more successful in mating and will therefore have a higher chance of passing on their genes. But we have all seen that you dismiss facts when it is convenient for you, like when I showed you that chromosomal fusion occurred in humans.

 

[Mamoon]

Yet another strawman.

I asked you to post the tenets of science, to be clear, as you weren't demonstrating that you knew them at all. That's lie #1.

I never copy and pasted, I used academic research to cover my point. Lie#2.

It is not an 'extinct theory', that doesn't even make sense Lie #3.

Not being emotive, just highlighting that you know nothing about evolution. Lie #4.

Natural selection isn't 'death', it is simply the fact that those animals with advantageous traits will be more successful in mating and will therefore have a higher chance of passing on their genes. But we have all seen that you dismiss facts when it is convenient for you, like when I showed you that chromosomal fusion occurred in humans.

I hope you do realise you are banging your head against a concrete wall here. Nevertheless, I will not like to discourage you because there will always be someone who will learn something from these discussions.

Perhaps people on this forum who are not even posting but simply come here to read the threads. That is my number one motivation for these debates - the intention is not to try and reverse the serious brainwashing.

 

[Tubs]

I hope you do realise you are banging your head against a concrete wall here. Nevertheless, I will not like to discourage you because there will always be someone who will learn something from these discussions.

Perhaps people on this forum who are not even posting but simply come here to read the threads. That is my number one motivation for these debates - the intention is not to try and reverse the serious brainwashing.

Very true.

I'm glad to see that not all Pakistanis are lost on this (though it would be worrying if a doctor held the same views as this science denier!). I do hope that this conversation will lead to others doing their own research, from academic sources, not biased Conservative-Christian websites like our friend cites from.

Evolution truly is fascinating, as is the mystery of abiogenesis. It is truly a shame that those insecure in their beliefs would rather stick their fingers in their ears rather than learn something.

 

[Technics 1210]

Darwinists will tell you that winning the lottery is improbable given the odds, however given the odds of DNA appearing through nothing but chance, matter, and time, makes a lottery win look like a certainty. Flukists believe this. Not only it just happened, but it can happen.

Remember folks, according to Flukists, something from nothing is improbable, because there is always a chance, no matter how absurd the probability. Yet, there is no chance of an intelligence entity or force according to flukists.

As I said, bankrupt ideology.

 

[Tubs]

Darwinists will tell you that winning the lottery is improbable given the odds, however given the odds of DNA appearing through nothing but chance, matter, and time, makes a lottery win look like a certainty. Flukists believe this. Not only it just happened, but it can happen.

Remember folks, according to Flukists, something from nothing is improbable, because there is always a chance, no matter how absurd the probability. Yet, there is no chance of an intelligence entity or force according to flukists.

As I said, bankrupt ideology.

Here you go with the same old rehashed teleological argument, and improbability.

I never said there is no chance of a God, I merely said there is no evidence of one, especially the God of Abraham. I also said that Deism is orders of magnitude more plausible than theism.

Just because abiogenesis hasn't been figured out, you can't just assert 'God did it'. If everything needs to be created, who created God? But no, theists always commit a special pleading fallacy by saying that God is eternal. Do carry on with your faith, but don't ridicule scientific theories which have concrete backing behind them.

 

[Technics 1210]

Darwinism requires more faith than religion. 4 pages on and not a shred of empirical evidence supportinlg Marco Evolution, just mere rehashing of terms learned in this thread such as Teleoogy, and artistic impressions in books. DToE sound like a rock solid theory to anyone? Oh by the way, Teleoogy NOT Theleoogy - means purpose NOT God. Their love for chance is blind as well as divine!

Lots of bluff and bluster by DToEs, but hey, it just happens. Note, not a word on DNA error correction from DToEs - I guess they are still Googling, or have realized DToE theory is dead. Hence the emotive rhetoric.

How can a random process engage in DNA error-checking? It can't. This is a fact. Error checking cannot be random, it must be through some form of choice.

Intelligence, latin from the phrase, to choose from. Something else our resident DToEs will Google no doubt.

DToE is extinct.

 

[Tubs]

Darwinism requires more faith than religion. 4 pages on and not a shred of empirical evidence supportinlg Marco Evolution, just mere rehashing of terms learned in this thread such as Teleoogy, and artistic impressions in books. DToE sound like a rock solid theory to anyone? Oh by the way, Teleoogy NOT Theleoogy - means purpose NOT God. Their love for chance is blind as well as divine!

Lots of bluff and bluster by DToEs, but hey, it just happens. Note, not a word on DNA error correction from DToEs - I guess they are still Googling, or have realized DToE theory is dead. Hence the emotive rhetoric.

How can a random process engage in DNA error-checking? It can't. This is a fact. Error checking cannot be random, it must be through some form of choice.

Intelligence, latin from the phrase, to choose from. Something else our resident DToEs will Google no doubt.

DToE is extinct.

Someone obviously hasn't heard of DNA Polymerase. Congratulations, you who is going against the consensus of science, doesn't even have knowledge of A Level Biology.

You keep showing your ignorance, but I know you won't accept this like you didn't accept the chromosomal fusion.

 

[Tubs]

And regarding proof of macro evolution, the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx which shows the transition from therapods to modern birds, and the vestigial claw that modern birds have from therapods definitely won't be sufficient for you, because you don't want to accept the truth.

Even your precious Muslim academics accepted that evolution is true, and that humans 'get their intellect from old world monkeys'.

 

[Technics 1210]

I am copying and pasting MY post from another thread!

DNA cannot existing without protein, and protein cannot exist without DNA.

For a fully functional cell to appear, every aspect of the cell must appear at once - the membrane, proteins, carbohydrates, cytoplasm, nucleas, ribsomes, lysosomes, and mitochondria, RNA, and DNA. If any component is missing, the cell will die - meaning all components of a cell must appear at the same time, not through chemical evolution of individual compounds.

So you can take your abiogenesis hypotheses and bin it.

 

[Technics 1210]

And regarding proof of macro evolution, the transitional fossil Archaeopteryx which shows the transition from therapods to modern birds, and the vestigial claw that modern birds have from therapods definitely won't be sufficient for you, because you don't want to accept the truth.

Even your precious Muslim academics accepted that evolution is true, and that humans 'get their intellect from old world monkeys'.

LOL! This is empirical is it?

All the fossils demonstrate is one specie existed during a particular strata.

You are joining the dots with your insecurity and faith. Frog into a Prince syndrome.

Go look up what empirical means. You were educated on the tenets of science, now time for graduation.

 

[Tubs]

Cambridge researchers have shown that RNA can be synthesised in prebiotic conditions without the use of enzymes. And yes, the research is still being done, but advancements are being made. It is really sad that you chest thump because it is still under research?

Again, the plausibility of abiogenesis is orders of magnitude higher than the Abrahamic God orchestrating this.

Also, funny that you're bringing abiogenesis into an evolution discussion when you were the one who brought up that they're distinct fields? Stop deflecting the fact that evolution is true, you know you can't argue your point.

 

[Tubs]

LOL! This is empirical is it?

All the fossils demonstrate is one specie existed during a particular strata.

You are joining the dots with your insecurity and faith. Frog into a Prince syndrome.

Go look up what empirical means. You were educated on the tenets of science, now time for graduation.

There is even molecular evidence to show relationship between a T.rex and a chicken. But you will dismiss this too as 'frog into a Prince'. You are so blinded by faith that you can't even see the evidence in front of you. It is a real shame.

You also haven't told us your scientific credentials yet. Surely you're a PhD Biologist with dozens of publications showing the falsehoods of evolution, right!

 

[Technics 1210]

Cambridge researchers have shown that RNA can be synthesised in prebiotic conditions without the use of enzymes. And yes, the research is still being done, but advancements are being made. It is really sad that you chest thump because it is still under research?

Again, the plausibility of abiogenesis is orders of magnitude higher than the Abrahamic God orchestrating this.

Also, funny that you're bringing abiogenesis into an evolution discussion when you were the one who brought up that they're distinct fields? Stop deflecting the fact that evolution is true, you know you can't argue your point.

Jackanory. Grab an Aloe Vera coated Kleenex.

You have no answer to the fact all components of a cell must appear at once.

I didn't mention God in my post above, so why mention God in your post?

I only stepped up one gear challenging your flukist belief life appeared through chance.

Given up? If only you were GCSE pass, I would be in 3rd gear by now. You stay in reverse gear and happy Googling and plagiarizing response!

By the way, I never said evolution was not true, I am however questing the mechanics. You are poor on science, how is your English?

Good night!

 

[Tubs]

Jackanory. Grab an Aloe Vera coated Kleenex.

You have no answer to the fact all components of a cell must appear at once.

I didn't mention God in my post above, so why mention God in your post?

I only stepped up one gear challenging your flukist belief life appeared through chance.

Given up? If only you were GCSE pass, I would be in 3rd gear by now. You stay in reverse gear and happy Googling and plagiarizing response!

By the way, I never said evolution was not true, I am however questing the mechanics. You are poor on science, how is your English?

Good night!

I just highlighted how the formation of RNA is possible in prebiotic conditions, using all geologic components, and that is supporting evidence for the RNA World hypothesis. You obviously have no idea what is going on here.

Where have I said I was giving up?

The burden of proof is on you to prove that evolution is not possible, as you're the one arguing against it. It's easy to 'debunk' a field of study which doesn't have a formulated theory yet, and you feel so superior that you can do so. How cute.

And keep pushing this 'plagiarism' argument, it is laughable how you have to resort to ad hominem.

And I have already mentioned that I'm a 3rd year Computer Science student. You, person who doesn't have the biological knowledge of a A Level Biology student, what is your educational background?

 

[Technics 1210]

Well folks, chemical evolution of RNA is the equivalent of a full blown cell according to a 3rd year Computer science student. AMAZING! Such is his hope he clings on to scraps.

Our 3rd year student fails to realise that without the other components of a cell, the RNA is useless. Now here is the kicker folks, Messenger RNA is the RNA that carries information from DNA, that's right, FROM DNA. Yet according to our student, RNA appeared before DNA. But wait! Flukists will claim all components evolved at the same time! Just like that!

Like I said, one cannot reason with a flukist. Really they need a magic wand, not an education.

 

[Tubs]

Well folks, chemical evolution of RNA is the equivalent of a full blown cell according to a 3rd year Computer science student. AMAZING! Such is his hope he clings on to scraps.

Our 3rd year student fails to realise that without the other components of a cell, the RNA is useless. Now here is the kicker folks, Messenger RNA is the RNA that carries information from DNA, that's right, FROM DNA. Yet according to our student, RNA appeared before DNA.

Like I said, one cannot reason with a flukist. Really they need a magic wand, not an education.

More ad hominem.

I am not a cell biologist, and neither are you (you don't seem to be much of anything as you don't want to disclose your educational background).

You really know nothing about RNA by that nonsense you just spewed, you really need to read up on A Level Biology. . Messenger RNA is a subtype of RNA. RNA can store and replicate genetic information, and act as enzymes, which allows for self-replication among other things. You really have to read up on RNA World before you embarrass yourself further. So much for no evidence of abiogenesis. Do try again next time.

 

[Technics 1210]

There is even molecular evidence to show relationship between a T.rex and a chicken. But you will dismiss this too as 'frog into a Prince'. You are so blinded by faith that you can't even see the evidence in front of you. It is a real shame.

You also haven't told us your scientific credentials yet. Surely you're a PhD Biologist with dozens of publications showing the falsehoods of evolution, right!

I missed this beauty.

Yes there is molecular evidence to show the relationship between Trex and a Chicken, it is called DNA; identical sequences.

So what, Humans share DNA sequences with every piece of fruit, plants, and Trex too, not forgetting the chicken!

The real tragedy is the likes of Tubs believe RM+NS is the only theory of evolution. (He will go Googling now).

They just do not understand what mechanics of change mean. Well if they believe change is random, with the help of death, then so be it.

 

[Tubs]

I missed this beauty.

Yes there is molecular evidence to show the relationship between Trex and a Chicken, it is called DNA; identical sequences.

So what, Humans share DNA sequences with every piece of fruit, plants, and Trex too, not forgetting the chicken!

The real tragedy is the likes of Tubs believe RM+NS is the only theory of evolution. (He will go Googling now).

They just do not understand what mechanics of change mean. Well if they believe change is random, with the help of death, then so be it.

Maybe I should have made it more clear for someone like you, the molecular evidence showed a close relationship between the two animals, but again you'll use a cop out by saying 'it's just DNA'.

If you scroll up, you will see that natural selection and population genetics were concatenated into one theory, and further developed into evo-devo. You need to stop these flatout lies. There are also proposals of a mutation-driven evolution, but that isn't as widely accepted. Yes, mutations are a part of evolution but I don't think it's likely to be the biggest contributing factor.

You just got owned about RNA and you're trying to hide it by strawmanning my previous arguments. Bravo, this is Apologetics 101.

 

[Technics 1210]

More ad hominem.

I am not a cell biologist, and neither are you (you don't seem to be much of anything as you don't want to disclose your educational background).

You really know nothing about RNA by that nonsense you just spewed, you really need to read up on A Level Biology. . Messenger RNA is a subtype of RNA. RNA can store and replicate genetic information, and act as enzymes, which allows for self-replication among other things. You really have to read up on RNA World before you embarrass yourself further. So much for no evidence of abiogenesis. Do try again next time.

That was a a quick Google.

Only problem is you never mentioned mRNA (I did) the reason being, you just learned about it, now you Google and come out with another random piece. You still are failing to understanding RNA cannot survive without the other components of a cell.

Fact is you are a 3rd year student studying computer science, not Biology.

Irony is, you are learning computer programs do not appear from nothing - humans program computers at some point. Intelligence begets intelligence.

Wonderful!

 

[Technics 1210]

Maybe I should have made it more clear for someone like you, the molecular evidence showed a close relationship between the two animals, but again you'll use a cop out by saying 'it's just DNA'.

If you scroll up, you will see that natural selection and population genetics were concatenated into one theory, and further developed into evo-devo. You need to stop these flatout lies. There are also proposals of a mutation-driven evolution, but that isn't as widely accepted. Yes, mutations are a part of evolution but I don't think it's likely to be the biggest contributing factor.

You just got owned about RNA and you're trying to hide it by strawmanning my previous arguments. Bravo, this is Apologetics 101.

Draw me a picture of this close relationship.

Stop using phrases like mutation driven evolution, no need to impress, it's clear Google is your teacher. Difference between you and I is you believe mutations are RANDOM! Now stick to being a flukist.

Just learned about population genetic huh? Go look up genetic drift too.

 

[Tubs]

That was a a quick Google.

Only problem is you never mentioned mRNA (I did) the reason being, you just learned about it, now you Google and come out with another random piece. You still are failing to understanding RNA cannot survive without the other components of a cell.

Fact is you are a 3rd year student studying computer science, not Biology.

Irony is, you are learning computer programs do not appear from nothing - humans program computers at some point. Intelligence begets intelligence.

Wonderful!

You are not a biologist. You are not disclosing your background (or lack thereof).

I do not need to Google about simple things like that because I learnt them in A level biology, but you can keep lying and asserting things without evidence.

Don't backtrack now, don't justify you calling all RNA mRNA because I didn't mention it. You obviously no nothing about this subject.

You are failing to understand that RNA has been synthesised in prebiotic settings. But you're not one to listen to evidence.

And I have read about the RNA world hypothesis, which you obviously haven't.

There is no irony in my degree choice, you are just making false equivalences to bring about some semblance of an argument.

Your ignorance really knows no bounds. If a simple hypothesis has this much supporting evidence, you can't honestly ridicule the plausibility of abiogensis.

But as Mamoon said, I am slamming my head on a concrete wall with you.

 

[Technics 1210]

You are not a biologist. You are not disclosing your background (or lack thereof).

I do not need to Google about simple things like that because I learnt them in A level biology, but you can keep lying and asserting things without evidence.

Don't backtrack now, don't justify you calling all RNA mRNA because I didn't mention it. You obviously no nothing about this subject.

You are failing to understand that RNA has been synthesised in prebiotic settings. But you're not one to listen to evidence.

And I have read about the RNA world hypothesis, which you obviously haven't.

There is no irony in my degree choice, you are just making false equivalences to bring about some semblance of an argument.

Your ignorance really knows no bounds. If a simple hypothesis has this much supporting evidence, you can't honestly ridicule the plausibility of abiogensis.

But as Mamoon said, I am slamming my head on a concrete wall with you.

Ahhhh now hiding behind Mamoon.

Maybe he can paint a picture which explains why EVERY component of a cell must appear at once. Which part are you not understanding? How desperate are you to appease your insecurity? Science clearly demonstrates that a cell cannot survive with a single cellular component missing yet you are blagging by claiming RNA on its own is evidence of abiogensis - even without a cell membrane!

Like I said, bin your hypothesis.

10 Print "Bankrupt Ideology"
20 Gotoline 10.

 

[Tubs]

Draw me a picture of this close relationship.

Stop using phrases like mutation driven evolution, no need to impress, it's clear Google is your teacher. Difference between you and I is you believe mutations are RANDOM! Now stick to being a flukist.

Just learned about population genetic huh? Go look up genetic drift too.

Regarding the paper on the closeness of T.rex to a chicken, I got muddled up with 2 papers, the comparison between T.rex and chicken was bone structure, the protein sequencing evidence was just T.rex and modern birds. I'm trying to find the full paper since I don't have it saved, give me a bit.

Why do you get so insecure when I use technical terms? Your lack of academic background getting intimidated? Don't worry, you can easily Google what they mean. Besides, the name itself is quite intuitive.

And of course mutations are random, who ever disputed it?

And I have mentioned population genetics before, so again, stop lying. And yes, I am aware of genetic drift too, I was introduced to it through a debate between a religious science denier and a evolutionary scientist. It's a no brainer who won.

 

[Tubs]

Ahhhh now hiding behind Mamoon.

Maybe he can paint a picture which explains why EVERY component of a cell must appear at once. Which part are you not understanding? How desperate are you to appease your insecurity? Science clearly demonstrates that a cell cannot survive with a single cellular component missing yet you are blagging by claiming RNA on its own is evidence of abiogensis - even without a cell membrane!

Like I said, bin your hypothesis.

10 Print "Bankrupt Ideology"
20 Gotoline 10.

Wait, you are obviously mixing up prokaryotes with eukaryotes. Please stop embarrassing yourself further.

And you aren't listening, the experiments showed that RNA could be created in a prebiotic environment.

And as I said, this isn't a theory. The science will become stronger over time and then we can have a proper debate about this. This thread is about evolution. Let's leave it there. I will happily concede that not enough is known about abiogenesis, it's just that when you suggest it's an impossibility, that is simply not true. I just wanted to highlight plausibilities, which show that it is far from impossible.

there is no use talking to someone who refuses to listen to hard evidence about evolution, but I hope those of you who may be reading will do some research fro yourselves. Look at objective scientific journals rather than religious propaganda.

Goodnight hun, hope your delusion helps you sleep better!

 

[Technics 1210]

And of course mutations are random, who ever disputed it?

Then you are not reading this thread, and neither do you have any knowledge of the variants of Evolutionary theories in existence. Quick Google!

You know RNA cannot survive without other cell components.

You know DNA error checking destroys the nonsense of random processes.

Which is why you have not countered the points above in any shape or form.

Farewell 3rd year computer science student.

 

[Tubs]

Then you are not reading this thread, and neither do you have any knowledge of the variants of Evolutionary theories in existence. Quick Google!

You know RNA cannot survive without other cell components.

You know DNA error checking destroys the nonsense of random processes.

Which is why you have not countered the points above in any shape or form.

Farewell 3rd year computer science student.

DNA polymerase error checks.

And I did mention other evolutionary approaches, but you're not very good at reading it seems.

I am not sure about the RNA query, as I am not a cell biologist. There was mention of an evolved membrane-like structure when I did some reading on RNA world but the name escapes me. But as I said, this is all simply a hypothesis, which has definite flaws but definitely has some plausibility to it. Science will figure out the answer, maybe not in our lifetime, but it will. I know that fact scares you.

And I did Google this, and I am kicking myself for forgetting, but you've failed to mention endosymbiosis (something I first learned about when watching Aron Ra on YouTube, do check him out, he is far more well-versed in evolution than either of us). It deals with the evolution (I know that word sends shivers down your spine) of prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, especially the evolution of the mitochondria.

The science is definitely getting there, and it will eventually. You may call that 'faith' but it's more akin to reason. Scientific advancement is one of the constants in this world, and I really hope you come to see that, No Credentials.

If we can drop the snarky comments for a little bit, I really think you should read more about these topics without preconceived notions. It is not reasonable to just dismiss all the work of acclaimed academics for personal reasons. Things are true even if we don't want to believe them. Again, I concede that abiogenesis is far from a solved puzzle, but evolution is. You ridicule Google but we have the ability to take in so much knowledge in no time at all. Use that.

 

[Technics 1210]

DNA polymerase error checks.

And I did mention other evolutionary approaches, but you're not very good at reading it seems.

I am not sure about the RNA query, as I am not a cell biologist. There was mention of an evolved membrane-like structure when I did some reading on RNA world but the name escapes me. But as I said, this is all simply a hypothesis, which has definite flaws but definitely has some plausibility to it. Science will figure out the answer, maybe not in our lifetime, but it will. I know that fact scares you.

And I did Google this, and I am kicking myself for forgetting, but you've failed to mention endosymbiosis (something I first learned about when watching Aron Ra on YouTube, do check him out, he is far more well-versed in evolution than either of us). It deals with the evolution (I know that word sends shivers down your spine) of prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, especially the evolution of the mitochondria.

The science is definitely getting there, and it will eventually. You may call that 'faith' but it's more akin to reason. Scientific advancement is one of the constants in this world, and I really hope you come to see that, No Credentials.

If we can drop the snarky comments for a little bit, I really think you should read more about these topics without preconceived notions. It is not reasonable to just dismiss all the work of acclaimed academics for personal reasons. Things are true even if we don't want to believe them. Again, I concede that abiogenesis is far from a solved puzzle, but evolution is. You ridicule Google but we have the ability to take in so much knowledge in no time at all. Use that.

It is you who is scared and insecure. You are the one who first invoked God in this thread, you are the one who is plagiarising, copying, and posting responses pretending you understand the content, and it is you who doesn’t even understand what *mechanisms* within a theory mean. You are clearly learning post by post.

Let me be blunt, you are a Materialist. Do you know what a Materialist is? Someone who believes everything within the universe can be explained and quantified through time, matter, and chance. You barley have a grasp of science and the processes involved, let alone fail to understand science has limits. You have faith in materialism. This is the reality. So much so, despite all the empirical evidence demonstrating that RNA cannot exist without other components of a cell, you still claim it is reasonable to assume it can. This is not science, this is blind faith, and a shot in the dark from Google.

Such is your hatred of Theism, you still haven’t twigged the fact, despite rambling on for pages, that I have not denied evolution, but I refuse to accept the proposed mechanism of RM+NS. But no, you view anyone who questions evolution as a Theist flat earther. This is the problem, you argue from a point of ideology, not a point of science, this is why you are vexed most of the time.

You want to be believe you are the result of lady luck because it endorses your view towards a materialist universe, then good for you, but as far as I am concerned, genius has limits, stupidity is limitless.

Now hard feelings!