theStudent wrote:
Evolutionists
A person who believes in organic evolution
Evolutionism
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals
I would suggest that a definition of the theory of evolution is the change in inheritable characteristics of groups of animals over given time periods. To say "origins" might make some people thing abiogenesis is included in there, which it isn't.
When it comes to evolution, however - let me first give my personal opinion. I think when some people get to a certain level of education, they think that they have a big advantage over "less educated" or "common" people.
So they feel they can use terminology that they believe people will not understand, or even misunderstand. And they feel this gives them the advantage, because they can twist or bend these fancy words to deceive or confuse people.
But they fail to realize one thing - We don't live in the dark ages no more. We live in an age where knowledge is available to the youngest child, who can read.
Then why are so many believers so busy asking questions that they could be answering themselves? Why are believers constantly confusing evolution with abiogenesis? While I agree that everyone is going to be at different knowledge levels about ANY topic of discussion at this or any other website, I also know that anyone can increase their knowledge if they really desire to.
I have all the written information on evolution I think possible to find on the internet.
I've collect all the definitions to the fancy terms as well.
I can use these, if that's preffered.
However, I find video, easier to watch, and these ones I find are explained in a simple "down to earth way" not above your head scientific terms.
I apologize if this is out of line, but I don't believe that claim. You didn't even bother to look up see if blood clotting evolution has been studied before asking "what about that proves that evolution was responsible", and now you want to tell us you have all the written info possible, and know all the "fancy" terms". Ugh.
Here is what I get in a nutshell on evolution being responsible for life on earth.
(I'm not interested in the evolution that involves adaption - this is evident even in what we know as our immune system. We understand adaptation.)
Let me stop you right there. You immune system does not evolve. Yes it does CHANGE, adding information as you encounter more and different infections in your life. That does not get passed down from generation to generation though, and is not inheritable. That's why we all have to go through the same illnesses as our parents did.
All life on earth may have originated from a common ancestor.
That common ancestor - chemistry, or chemical reaction.
Where did this chemistry come from? Probably outer space.
A living cell somehow made it through the turbulent atmosphere and survived to reach earth and survive in that atmosphere as well.
And get this - the common ancestor that gave life to all life on earth, is a four footed land animal, but where did the chemical reaction take place? In water.
No, a living cell probably did not come to Earth through the atmosphere. The components for the first protobiont quite possibly did, as amino acids and sugars and alcohols and other complex carbon molecules, which can and do exist in deep space on objects, some of which fall to Earth. These things got together probably in the water, and probably near thermal vents. Since this is NOT evolution however, but abiogenesis, let's move on...
The common ancestor to all life on Earth is a four footed animal? You sure you have all the written information one can find on the internet about evolution??? No one states that anywhere.
All guess work - unreliable guess work. And they are still guessing.
I can come up with a theory, and then try to fit what is evident around me to my theory.
Someone asked what I consider to be two reasonable questions.
If all life on earth originated from a common ancestor
1. What do humans and plants have in common in order to say that they are related?
2. How did humans develop morals - which is clearly lacking in animals, and plants?
Wow!
I could actually imaging a teenager without a degree asking such questions.
There is no guesswork about the theory of evolution, which for the hundreth time you are merging with the theory of abiogenesis (how life began). Abiogenesis is definitely at a working stage. The scientific theory of evolution is as solid as it gets in science.
For question 1: Look it up yourself. I thought you already had all the written information for evolution, right? Then why can't you answer that yourself? Hmmm...
For question 2: Look it up yourself. I thought you already had all the written information for evolution, right? Then why can't you answer that yourself? Hmmm...
And before you suggest otherwise, I do know the answers to that. But it's time to stop spoon feeding you and see if you can walk on your own...
Conclusion:
They have not found out, how life came into existence.
That is a fact.
Which is not the theory of evolution. It's ridiculous how many times you have made this mistake.
Yet persons here are telling me that the evidence is there.
What evidence?
For which theory? I can't even tell which one you want to discuss anymore...
That every living thing produces according to it's kind?
I know little children who already know that, and they did not learn it from science.
I thought you had all the written material that is out there on the internet about the theory of evolution. If that is true that you can certainly understand that a species isn't born from another species in just one generation...right?
The Bible said it.
When God told Noah to take two of every animal into the ark, what could one possibly think he was doing - make manure?
No.
Genesis 7:2, 3
. . .the male and its mate; and of every animal that is not clean just two, the male and its mate; also of the flying creatures of the sky by sevens, male and female, to preserve their offspring alive over all the earth.
The Bible also said plants came before the Sun. It said man came after the animals and then said man came before the animals. This is the document you want to use to support your claims?
By the way, which member of Noah's family got to carry the human diseases? Gonorrhea, syphilis, herpes, chlamydia, HPV, yellow fever, hepatitis (all of them), rubella, whooping cough....just to name a few. Who was it?
Evoluton, which is being challenged, has nothing to do with how living things function. They function because their designer made them to function, in the way they do.
Evolution that is being challenged is
the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.
It doesn't seem possible that someone could mix up two different scientific theories after all the times it has been explained to them in other threads that they are mixing up two different scientific theories when they say evolution and "the first living organism developed from lifeless matter" in the same sentence. Yet here it is, in black and white for all to see. I'm sorry, I don't know how to explain it any better than I have. Perhaps someone else can help out...
In the mean time, I've repeatedly asked you for even one piece of evidence for a creative being, and you've yet to produce the goods. Time to pony up...
the theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.
A theory that I cleary stated was not proven to be factual, but yes is considered factual, even though those who promote it use such terms as, possibly, may have, are not certain.
And the research I have done now has not changed that.
It has only verified it.
Yes you've clearly stated it. What you haven't done is shown that you've even looked at any of the data or evidence for the theory of evolution. Not surprising, since you haven't even shown you understand what the theory states. But you've "done research" on a theory that you keep mixing with another separate theory. You've found all the "written" material available on the internet though.
Sorry to call you out like this, but it isn't going to help you out by sugar coating the rather flagrant mistakes you keep making in regards to this topic...
Evolution has not provided any evidence for the origin of life on earth.
I would wholeheartedly agree. Since evolution has nothing to say about the origin of life on Earth, that statement only makes sense.
Take this one for example:
Miller–Urey experiment
it was conducted in 1952 by Stanley Miller, with assistance from Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.
After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. More-recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.
Not evolution.
Does this make sense to you?
55 years!
A whole 55 years to discover that the experiment produced more than the 10 amino acids produced in Miller's experiment.
In fact, according to those who made the discovery 55 years later, the amino acids were little above the amount needed for life (20).
Well, of course, after running a few more experiments, and putting in just what is needed, it is possible to get it right after 55 years.
But did they mention that those amino acids still did not meet the requirements for life, even if they were 100 of them?
No. Of course, they left that part out.
How could they ever accomplish this?
In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell.
In Miller's experiment, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced.
Now why would that piece of information be so important?
Life cannot exist, if they don't get it right.
And that is just one of the hundreds of problems evolution has failed to solve.
Not evolution.
No wonder Fred Hoyle, English astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, compares the likelihood of life appearing on Earth by chemical reactions "as equivalent to the possibility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".
Not evolution.
Awesome! Why stop at mixing two separate scientific theories in one post. You've added a third, unrelated topic to stir in with the first two. Well done you.
Thanks guys I have done (and I am not finished all) the research.
If the above information in the videos is wrong, please let me know.
However, the fact remains, believing in scientific theories is still a matter of faith in what another says, without substantial evidence.
It also takes faith to believe that life on earth originated by pure chance, and without having any substantial evidence.
I don't know what you've been doing this whole time, but it isn't learning and researching about the theory of evolution...
