Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[freo99]

Here is my response again.

Billions of years ago, Bacteria began exchanging genes via

• conjugation (a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes, a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell, of similar morphology (generally similar in shape and size), found in most unicellular organisms,
• transformation (the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material from its surroundings through the cell membrane), and
• transduction (the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into a cell by a virus)

Sexual reproduction generates variation by mixing up the genetic makeup of the parents. Experiments confirm that members of a sexual lineage usually adapt faster than asexual members of the same species (Asexual reproduction does not involve sex cells or fertilisation. Only one parent is required, unlike sexual reproduction which needs two parents. Since there is only one parent, there is no fusion of gametes and no mixing of genetic information when conditions change.)

So to adapt to changing conditions (such as climate change) conjugation became the preferred method and this led to the evolution of sexual reproduction

Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly and often would mean the genes could not adapt to changing conditions and died out.

This happened about 2 billion years ago. That's 2,000 million years ago.
.


See above.



See above.

If this miraculous creation had both sexes, then they would have to have identical mutations
across all species in perpetuity to perpetuate.

All that statement shows is that you don't understand evolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest to pursue a particular agenda.

In evolution a plant does NOT magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation.

If that's the type of thing you want as evidence, you won't find any because that's NOT what evolution is about.

It doesn''t happen at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') between different species of both animals and plants.

Nonetheless evolution has been directly observed many times, and we have overwhelming observable, empirical evidence to support both the fact and model (theory) of evolution. The model is still being tinkered with in light of new discoveries and advances in technologies such as better DNA sequencing. Adjusting the model in the light of new evidence does NOT however falsify the scientific fact of evolution.

Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes of evolution on different scales so to admit one is to admit the other,

Creationists have to admit microevolution is "real", it cannot in fact be denied due to the overwhelming evidence in support, but they argue that “macroevolution” is where the “theory” of evolution breaks down. The idea presumes that there is some threshold beyond which “evolutionary” change cannot occur. The fallacy is that there is some distinctinon between evolution within a genus and between gens. Mathematically you can prove that the gradual changes must inevitably accumulate. This is a direct result of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy, far from opposing evolution, is a thermodynamic driving force that propels natural selection, the mechanism of evolution.

All known organisms consist of one or more cells, the most basic units of life. Each cell maintains a precise and constant internal physiochemical environment throughout its life that is distinct from its surroundings. This is achieved by expending energy acquired from externally derived nutrients (free energy) to fuel diverse regulatory processes that are collectively termed “metabolism”. Therefore, organisms, and the individual cells that compose them, are open systems that continually exchange nutrients and wastes with their environment. Natural selection favors the genetic mutation that leads to the faster rate of entropy

Assuming or admitting “micro” evolution inescapably admits “macro” evolution.

What has also been directly observed is speciation. Speciation is one species evolving into another species. Not only has it been directly observed, but we also have hundred of thousands of specific pieces of evidence (at least) across a number of scientific fields that support and confirm the fact of evolution.

Some examples of observed speciation (in other words evolution) are:

• Hawthorn fly
• Three-spined sticklebacks
• Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
• Tennessee cave salamanders
• Greenish Warbler
• Ensatina salamanders
• Larus gulls
• Petroica multicolor
• Drosophila
• Mayr bird fauna
• Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
• Apple maggot
• Faeroe Island house mouse
• Primula kewensis
• Croatian lizards

Here's an example

Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973 on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, they noticed that an odd new finch had arrived at the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow it was still able to find a mate. The female also had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island. The biologists observed that after four finch generations, (about four-five years) a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, it was observed the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The hybrid finches had become a brand new species. Macroevolution at the smallest scale in action.

Here's another example

A study published a couple of years ago in the Royal Society journal "Proceedings B" has found coackroaches have evolved separately up to nine different times across Australia.

A team of evolutionary biologists at the University of Sydney sequenced the DNA of 25 different species of soil-burrowing cockroaches from around Australia, and compared the results with DNA from a more slim-line type of cockroach that eats and burrows into wood. They found soil-burrowing cockroaches have possibly evolved up to nine different times from the wood-feeders. The researchers found the evolution of soil-burrowing cockroaches occurred as recently as 5 million years ago in New South Wales and as far back as 15 million years ago in Queensland. What the study also confirmed is that evolution can be predictable because different species often (but not always) evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental pressures. But they do this seperately. It also supported the idea that different environmental pressures lead to different rates and types of evolution. Just because the cockroach has not evolved at a great rate of knots, compared with other species that have faced different types of environental pressures does not mean that modern cockroaches hae not evolved at all. They clearly have.

The above is another example of how advances in DNA sequencing are confirming / answering questions about the evolutuonary processes of a great many species of animals, insects, birds and reptiles. Including humans.

Scientific literature does contain dozens of other examples of speciation events in plants, insects and worms.

In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection - for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits - and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.

For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Scientists have also directly observed that mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. To use the fruit fly example above, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their very existence and development demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures and changes to anatomy, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

More speciation occurs and the two new species move further apart in gene structure, physiology and so on.

That is evoluton in action and it is very clear that evolution cexists.

Molecular biology has also discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond the point of the mutations described above, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in new ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features hence creating new species with different anatomies. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

The above, as well as many other observed examples as well as overwhelming genetic evidence, aptly demonstrate that evolution occurs.

DNA testing suggests that macroevolution (what we might also called common descent) also very likely occurs.

Of course, examples of common descent have not been directly observed because no one was there to observe it over such a long period of time (the same problem that exists when there is no direct eyewitness in a murder trial). However the above empirical evidence (which is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been gathered) clearly shows that speciation with different genetic mutations influencing anatomy can occur and has been observed to occur.

So based on our understanding and observations of genetics, it is very reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur and that there are no rational reasons or contrary evidence to support the idea that they can't occur.

It is therefore also logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events (which do occur - we have observed them in action) would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc., as per the biological classifications I outlined earlier.

Again the evidence for evolution is there and it is vast.

Molecular biologists, geneticists and chemists will keep adding to the vast catalogue of empirical evidence supporting both the fact and theory of evolution.

NOT ONE PIECE of the millions of pieces of evidence gathered up to this point have falsified evolution. Not one.

It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to falsify evolution. If you're so sure that evolution doesn't occur, present just ONE piece of evidence that falsifies evolution.



Of course it won't be. It's made up rubbish.



See above for explanation of how sexual reproduction first occurred.

Here's an example of how it was done.

The volvocine green algae is a family of present-day species that nicely illustrates the evolutionary transition from a single-celled organism without very distinct sexes, to a multi-cellular one with genuine males and females. To study this evolutionary process, biologists can compare a present-day single-cell species, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, with its much larger, multi-cellular relative, Volvox carteri. Volvox has males and females, while Chlamydomonas doesn't; by comparing the two, we can learn about how sexes evolve.

Chlamydomonas sex is typical for a single-cell sexual organism: primitive. These algae come in two different "mating types," called "plus" and "minus." Instead of issuing specialized male and female reproductive cells, this organism transforms its entire one-celled self into a gamete and seeks out a partner of the opposite mating type. Like two poles of a magnet, "plus" and "minus" organisms aren't that different from each other. The differences that do exist serve mainly to allow one mating type to recognize and fuse with the other.

Volvox sex, on the other hand, is surprisingly familiar. These algae, made up of about 2,000 cells, exist as distinct males and females. The males produce sperm that fertilize the eggs of the females, producing a zygote that develops into an embryo. Sound familiar? This whole reproductive process evolved from scratch in algae within the last 200 million years, during a time when reptiles, amphibians, mammals—descended from a long line of sexually reproducing ancestors—were roaming the Earth. The two sexes of Volvox are an evolutionary rerun.

Scientists observed that distinct sexes have evolved repeatedly in life's history, and the result is nearly always the same: females who produce relatively few large, immobile eggs, and males who produce many small, mobile sperm. To understand the genetic basis of Volvox males and females, the researchers tried swapping genes between the sexes.

They were interested in one gene in particular, called MID. Male Volvox have this gene, while the females don't. This gene exists in single-celled algae as well, where it acts as a master mating type switch that prevents "minus" from turning into "plus." The scientists reasoned that MID might do something similar in Volvox. They transferred a copy of this male-specific gene into females, which became pseudo-males and started making sperm. And when they deleted MID from the males, the algae became pseudo-females and started making eggs. Their results show that this master switch gene "control two very different manifestations of sexual reproduction." This gene was reprogrammed from a simple regulator of primitive mating types into one that controls the major differences between females and males.

The oldest and most fundamental way that males and females differ is in their reproductive cells. Once you have sex-specific reproductive cells, new sex-specific evolutionary strategies come into play. These drive the development of even more physical and behavioral differences between males and females. New genes fall under the control of the master switch to become sex-specific genes. In Volvox, about a dozen genes are found only in males or females. In humans, there are about 80 protein-coding genes on the Y chromosome that are specific to men. The human master switch is called SRY, and like MID in Volvox, its primary job is to switch on the genetic program to produce sperm.




No they don't. See above.



See above. There are many fertile hybrid species. New species in nature appear all the time. Forests with high levels of biodiversity become a cauldron of new species in continuous transformation. The best known mechanism for the formation of new species of animals or plants is the accumulation of genetic mutations in the offspring of the same species. New species may also result from the clustering of populations of different species that were once separated.



All this statement confirms (yet again) is that you don't understand evolution. Probably sheep give birth to sheep because they are mated with sheep. That's what animal husbandry is.



Oh? Are you referring to the study of abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis, the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter is a growing field. The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, however its possible mechanisms are debated.

In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

In 2001 Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."

A 2015 paper from a a team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK, published in the journal Nature Chemistry, showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine (all building blocks of life) from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.

And while none of the above is conclusive, empirical evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis existing does exist.

I'm prepared to wait for more evidence of abiogenesis rather than adopting the belief system of "Scientists can't exactly explain the origin of life yet, therefore it must have been God and more specifically, the version of God I believe in."

And as I've said the scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, (LUCA), of ALL living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. (355 genes according to a 2016 study). It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence (yet) about how LUCA arose from a boiling cauldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. That's abiogenesis.

Some may well believe 'divine intervention' by a 'creator god' put LUCA there (even though there is absolutely no evidence to support this).

It's also very possible that LUCA arose from non-life without divine intervention. Certainly there is scientific evidence that the second option was very possible. That evidence suggests that it is very possible that those chemicals reacted in some way to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today. Finding out how exactly, remains the object of on-going scientific study across the world.

My point is that there is an accumulating amount of solid scientific evidence that is backing up 'abiogenesis' in preference to the hypothesis of a supernatural origin for life (which of course is unverifiable and therefore not a scientific hypothesis.) To believe in a supernatural origin for life is based on nothing but 'faith'.

Abiogenesis is definitely proved possible, so the only questions that remain are:

• What is the probability that abiogenesis will happen in a certain suitable environment in a certain period of time?
• What is the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis occurs?

[/QUOTE]
Save it for someone else

 

[Roylion]

Save it for someone else

That's your response? After your whining that I still "haven’t contended with my post."

So you have no argument.

 

[Evolved1]

freo99

I found some links explaining Judiasm and by extension Christianity's position on abortion rights. It's not cut and dried.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-beginning-of-life-in-judaism/

When Does Life Begin? A Jewish View | Reclaiming Judaism

www.reclaimingjudaism.org

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpx68mn/revision/3

 

[Evolved1]

You keep on conflating all so called religions as if they are one, but exclude yourself + fellow devotees, very
ad hoc I might add.
Communism is an atheist state you can’t exclude what you don’t based solely on convenience.

All worldviews have a set of beliefs by which they operate.
Yours is no different. Communism is an atheistic state. There is a world movement to the left
right now, BLM, Extinction Rebellion, the US Democrat Party, The Greens + even some Republicans.
Many of them call themselves New Marxists, what do they all have in common, have a guess.

There really is nothing new under the sun.

You're conflating politics and religion.

What are your thoughts about Christian communism?

 

[Evolved1]

Absence of belief again in different words, is a redefinition of a word from what it has always meant
to escape having to support the view of no or against god.
As I said earlier have a look at any dictionary over about 20 years old.

Roy there are proofs of Gods existence you just fail to see them.

The moral law for one. If there is no God morality for one can be nothing other than
an illusion.
Im sure you know this, but just choose to ignore it or whatever.
And don’t quote Harris, Hitchens or Dennett to support some view, as they know it’s there
so they just appropriate it.

By the way I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate how any form of common descent can work,
from a previous post.
Because that too is a proof of Gods existence, cause there are only 2 options, either it
happened on its own by chance, or God did it.

Evolution relies on both random mutations and non-random natural selection. There doesn't need to be a god guiding the process when environmental factors work to select for beneficial heritable traits and against maladaptive traits.

If god created us 'as is' or guided our evolution, why did he create humans and other species with flaws?

 

[Rusty Brookes]

If there is no God morality does not actually exist.

The definition of morality according to dictionary.com is:

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.

You've made a claim that morality can only occur if there is a God. What is the basis of your claim?

 

[Osho]

Here is my response again.

Billions of years ago, Bacteria began exchanging genes via

• conjugation (a form of sexual reproduction that involves gametes, a haploid cell that fuses with another haploid cell, of similar morphology (generally similar in shape and size), found in most unicellular organisms,
• transformation (the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material from its surroundings through the cell membrane), and
• transduction (the process by which foreign DNA is introduced into a cell by a virus)

Sexual reproduction generates variation by mixing up the genetic makeup of the parents. Experiments confirm that members of a sexual lineage usually adapt faster than asexual members of the same species (Asexual reproduction does not involve sex cells or fertilisation. Only one parent is required, unlike sexual reproduction which needs two parents. Since there is only one parent, there is no fusion of gametes and no mixing of genetic information when conditions change.)

So to adapt to changing conditions (such as climate change) conjugation became the preferred method and this led to the evolution of sexual reproduction

Prior to the advent of sexual reproduction, the adaptation process whereby genes would change from one generation to the next (genetic mutation) happened very slowly and randomly and often would mean the genes could not adapt to changing conditions and died out.

This happened about 2 billion years ago. That's 2,000 million years ago.
.


See above.



See above.



All that statement shows is that you don't understand evolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest to pursue a particular agenda.

In evolution a plant does NOT magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation.

If that's the type of thing you want as evidence, you won't find any because that's NOT what evolution is about.

It doesn''t happen at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') between different species of both animals and plants.

Nonetheless evolution has been directly observed many times, and we have overwhelming observable, empirical evidence to support both the fact and model (theory) of evolution. The model is still being tinkered with in light of new discoveries and advances in technologies such as better DNA sequencing. Adjusting the model in the light of new evidence does NOT however falsify the scientific fact of evolution.

Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes of evolution on different scales so to admit one is to admit the other.

Creationists have to admit microevolution is "real", it cannot in fact be denied due to the overwhelming evidence in support, but they argue that “macroevolution” is where the “theory” of evolution breaks down. The idea presumes that there is some threshold beyond which “evolutionary” change cannot occur. The fallacy is that there is some distinctinon between evolution within a genus and between gens. Mathematically you can prove that the gradual changes must inevitably accumulate. This is a direct result of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy, far from opposing evolution, is a thermodynamic driving force that propels natural selection, the mechanism of evolution.

All known organisms consist of one or more cells, the most basic units of life. Each cell maintains a precise and constant internal physiochemical environment throughout its life that is distinct from its surroundings. This is achieved by expending energy acquired from externally derived nutrients (free energy) to fuel diverse regulatory processes that are collectively termed “metabolism”. Therefore, organisms, and the individual cells that compose them, are open systems that continually exchange nutrients and wastes with their environment. Natural selection favors the genetic mutation that leads to the faster rate of entropy.

Assuming or admitting “micro” evolution inescapably admits “macro” evolution.

What has also been directly observed is speciation. Speciation is one species evolving into another species. Not only has it been directly observed, but we also have hundred of thousands of specific pieces of evidence (at least) across a number of scientific fields that support and confirm the fact of evolution.

Some examples of observed speciation (in other words evolution) are:

• Hawthorn fly
• Three-spined sticklebacks
• Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
• Tennessee cave salamanders
• Greenish Warbler
• Ensatina salamanders
• Larus gulls
• Petroica multicolor
• Drosophila
• Mayr bird fauna
• Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
• Apple maggot
• Faeroe Island house mouse
• Primula kewensis
• Croatian lizards

Here's an example

Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973 on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, they noticed that an odd new finch had arrived at the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow it was still able to find a mate. The female also had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island. The biologists observed that after four finch generations, (about four-five years) a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, it was observed the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The hybrid finches had become a brand new species. Macroevolution at the smallest scale in action.

Here's another example

A study published a couple of years ago in the Royal Society journal "Proceedings B" has found coackroaches have evolved separately up to nine different times across Australia.

A team of evolutionary biologists at the University of Sydney sequenced the DNA of 25 different species of soil-burrowing cockroaches from around Australia, and compared the results with DNA from a more slim-line type of cockroach that eats and burrows into wood. They found soil-burrowing cockroaches have possibly evolved up to nine different times from the wood-feeders. The researchers found the evolution of soil-burrowing cockroaches occurred as recently as 5 million years ago in New South Wales and as far back as 15 million years ago in Queensland. What the study also confirmed is that evolution can be predictable because different species often (but not always) evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental pressures. But they do this seperately. It also supported the idea that different environmental pressures lead to different rates and types of evolution. Just because the cockroach has not evolved at a great rate of knots, compared with other species that have faced different types of environental pressures does not mean that modern cockroaches hae not evolved at all. They clearly have.

The above is another example of how advances in DNA sequencing are confirming / answering questions about the evolutuonary processes of a great many species of animals, insects, birds and reptiles. Including humans.

Scientific literature does contain dozens of other examples of speciation events in plants, insects and worms.

In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection - for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits - and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.

For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Scientists have also directly observed that mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. To use the fruit fly example above, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their very existence and development demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures and changes to anatomy, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

More speciation occurs and the two new species move further apart in gene structure, physiology and so on.

That is evoluton in action and it is very clear that evolution cexists.

Molecular biology has also discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond the point of the mutations described above, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in new ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features hence creating new species with different anatomies. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

The above, as well as many other observed examples as well as overwhelming genetic evidence, aptly demonstrate that evolution occurs.

DNA testing suggests that macroevolution (what we might also called 'common descent') also very likely occurs.

Of course, examples of common descent have not been directly observed because no one was there to observe it over such a long period of time (the same problem that exists when there is no direct eyewitness in a murder trial). However the above empirical evidence (which is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been gathered) clearly shows that speciation with different genetic mutations influencing anatomy can occur and has been observed to occur.

So based on our understanding and observations of genetics, it is very reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur and that there are no rational reasons or contrary evidence to support the idea that they can't occur.

It is therefore also logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events (which do occur - we have observed them in action) would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc., as per the usual biological classifications.

Again the evidence for evolution is there and it is vast.

Molecular biologists, geneticists and chemists will keep adding to the vast catalogue of empirical evidence supporting both the fact and theory of evolution.

NOT ONE PIECE of the millions of pieces of evidence gathered up to this point have falsified evolution. Not one.

It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to falsify evolution. If you're so sure that evolution doesn't occur, present just ONE piece of evidence that falsifies evolution.



Of course it won't be. It's made up rubbish.



See above for explanation of how sexual reproduction first occurred.

Here's an example of how it was done.

The volvocine green algae is a family of present-day species that nicely illustrates the evolutionary transition from a single-celled organism without very distinct sexes, to a multi-cellular one with genuine males and females. To study this evolutionary process, biologists can compare a present-day single-cell species, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, with its much larger, multi-cellular relative, Volvox carteri. Volvox has males and females, while Chlamydomonas doesn't; by comparing the two, we can learn about how sexes evolve.

Chlamydomonas sex is typical for a single-cell sexual organism: primitive. These algae come in two different "mating types," called "plus" and "minus." Instead of issuing specialized male and female reproductive cells, this organism transforms its entire one-celled self into a gamete and seeks out a partner of the opposite mating type. Like two poles of a magnet, "plus" and "minus" organisms aren't that different from each other. The differences that do exist serve mainly to allow one mating type to recognize and fuse with the other.

Volvox sex, on the other hand, is surprisingly familiar. These algae, made up of about 2,000 cells, exist as distinct males and females. The males produce sperm that fertilize the eggs of the females, producing a zygote that develops into an embryo. Sound familiar? This whole reproductive process evolved from scratch in algae within the last 200 million years, during a time when reptiles, amphibians, mammals - descended from a long line of sexually reproducing ancestors - were roaming the Earth. The two sexes of Volvox are an evolutionary rerun.

Scientists observed that distinct sexes have evolved repeatedly in life's history, and the result is nearly always the same: females who produce relatively few large, immobile eggs, and males who produce many small, mobile sperm. To understand the genetic basis of Volvox males and females, the researchers tried swapping genes between the sexes.

They were interested in one gene in particular, called MID. Male Volvox have this gene, while the females don't. This gene exists in single-celled algae as well, where it acts as a master mating type switch that prevents "minus" from turning into "plus." The scientists reasoned that MID might do something similar in Volvox. They transferred a copy of this male-specific gene into females, which became pseudo-males and started making sperm. And when they deleted MID from the males, the algae became pseudo-females and started making eggs. Their results show that this master switch gene "control two very different manifestations of sexual reproduction." This gene was reprogrammed from a simple regulator of primitive mating types into one that controls the major differences between females and males.

The oldest and most fundamental way that males and females differ is in their reproductive cells. Once you have sex-specific reproductive cells, new sex-specific evolutionary strategies come into play. These drive the development of even more physical and behavioral differences between males and females. New genes fall under the control of the master switch to become sex-specific genes. In Volvox, about a dozen genes are found only in males or females. In humans, there are about 80 protein-coding genes on the Y chromosome that are specific to men. The human master switch is called SRY, and like MID in Volvox, its primary job is to switch on the genetic program to produce sperm.




No they don't. See above.



See above. There are many fertile hybrid species. New species in nature appear all the time. Forests with high levels of biodiversity become a cauldron of new species in continuous transformation. The best known mechanism for the formation of new species of animals or plants is the accumulation of genetic mutations in the offspring of the same species. New species may also result from the clustering of populations of different species that were once separated.



All this statement confirms (yet again) is that you don't understand evolution. Probably sheep give birth to sheep because they are mated with sheep. That's what animal husbandry is.



Oh? Are you referring to the study of abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis, the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter is a growing field. The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, however its possible mechanisms are debated.

In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

In 2001 Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."

A 2015 paper from a a team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK, published in the journal Nature Chemistry, showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine (all building blocks of life) from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.

And while none of the above is conclusive, empirical evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis existing does exist.

I'm prepared to wait for more evidence of abiogenesis rather than adopting the belief system of "Scientists can't exactly explain the origin of life yet, therefore it must have been God and more specifically, the version of God I believe in."

And as I've said the scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, (LUCA), of ALL living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. (355 genes according to a 2016 study). It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence (yet) about how LUCA arose from a boiling cauldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. That's abiogenesis.

Some may well believe 'divine intervention' by a 'creator god' put LUCA there (even though there is absolutely no evidence to support this).

It's also very possible that LUCA arose from non-life without divine intervention. Certainly there is scientific evidence that the second option was very possible. That evidence suggests that it is very possible that those chemicals reacted in some way to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today. Finding out how exactly, remains the object of on-going scientific study across the world.

My point is that there is an accumulating amount of solid scientific evidence that is backing up 'abiogenesis' in preference to the hypothesis of a supernatural origin for life (which of course is unverifiable and therefore not a scientific hypothesis.) To believe in a supernatural origin for life is based on nothing but 'faith'.

Abiogenesis is definitely proved possible, so the only questions that remain are:

• What is the probability that abiogenesis will happen in a certain suitable environment in a certain period of time?
• What is the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis occurs?

Well that post had more information in it than the sum total of all other BF posts I've read. So, thanks

When you say these hybrid species refuse to mate with other species, does that mean they ignore the other species or remain unattracted to them, and ultimately after generations the species could not mate even if they tried. So we could say that the disinclination preceded inability? I am just wondering what drives the initial disinterest?

 

[Total Power]

That's your response? After your whining that I still "haven’t contended with my post."

So you have no argument.

You are wasting your time with him. There is almost no rebuttals from this lot except personal attack and obfuscation. ALWAYS.

 

[travelli]

All that statement shows is that you don't understand evolution or alternatively you're being consciously and deliberately dishonest to pursue a particular agenda.

In evolution a plant does NOT magically turn into an animal within one or two generations, something that you clearly believe should happen. Neither does a cat turn into a dog in one generation.

If that's the type of thing you want as evidence, you won't find any because that's NOT what evolution is about.

It doesn''t happen at all, given that (and please re-read this bit carefully) evolution is essentially about common ancestry (or more correctly 'common descent') between different species of both animals and plants.

Nonetheless evolution has been directly observed many times, and we have overwhelming observable, empirical evidence to support both the fact and model (theory) of evolution. The model is still being tinkered with in light of new discoveries and advances in technologies such as better DNA sequencing. Adjusting the model in the light of new evidence does NOT however falsify the scientific fact of evolution.

Macroevolution and microevolution describe fundamentally identical processes of evolution on different scales so to admit one is to admit the other,

Creationists have to admit microevolution is "real", it cannot in fact be denied due to the overwhelming evidence in support, but they argue that “macroevolution” is where the “theory” of evolution breaks down. The idea presumes that there is some threshold beyond which “evolutionary” change cannot occur. The fallacy is that there is some distinctinon between evolution within a genus and between gens. Mathematically you can prove that the gradual changes must inevitably accumulate. This is a direct result of the second law of thermodynamics. Entropy, far from opposing evolution, is a thermodynamic driving force that propels natural selection, the mechanism of evolution.

All known organisms consist of one or more cells, the most basic units of life. Each cell maintains a precise and constant internal physiochemical environment throughout its life that is distinct from its surroundings. This is achieved by expending energy acquired from externally derived nutrients (free energy) to fuel diverse regulatory processes that are collectively termed “metabolism”. Therefore, organisms, and the individual cells that compose them, are open systems that continually exchange nutrients and wastes with their environment. Natural selection favors the genetic mutation that leads to the faster rate of entropy

Assuming or admitting “micro” evolution inescapably admits “macro” evolution.

What has also been directly observed is speciation. Speciation is one species evolving into another species. Not only has it been directly observed, but we also have hundred of thousands of specific pieces of evidence (at least) across a number of scientific fields that support and confirm the fact of evolution.

Some examples of observed speciation (in other words evolution) are:

• Hawthorn fly
• Three-spined sticklebacks
• Cichlid fishes in Lake Nagubago
• Tennessee cave salamanders
• Greenish Warbler
• Ensatina salamanders
• Larus gulls
• Petroica multicolor
• Drosophila
• Mayr bird fauna
• Squirrels in the north and south rims of the Grand Canyon
• Apple maggot
• Faeroe Island house mouse
• Primula kewensis
• Croatian lizards

Here's an example

Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973 on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, they noticed that an odd new finch had arrived at the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow it was still able to find a mate. The female also had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island. The biologists observed that after four finch generations, (about four-five years) a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, it was observed the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The hybrid finches had become a brand new species. Macroevolution at the smallest scale in action.

Here's another example

A study published a couple of years ago in the Royal Society journal "Proceedings B" has found coackroaches have evolved separately up to nine different times across Australia.

A team of evolutionary biologists at the University of Sydney sequenced the DNA of 25 different species of soil-burrowing cockroaches from around Australia, and compared the results with DNA from a more slim-line type of cockroach that eats and burrows into wood. They found soil-burrowing cockroaches have possibly evolved up to nine different times from the wood-feeders. The researchers found the evolution of soil-burrowing cockroaches occurred as recently as 5 million years ago in New South Wales and as far back as 15 million years ago in Queensland. What the study also confirmed is that evolution can be predictable because different species often (but not always) evolve the same characteristics when exposed to the same environmental pressures. But they do this seperately. It also supported the idea that different environmental pressures lead to different rates and types of evolution. Just because the cockroach has not evolved at a great rate of knots, compared with other species that have faced different types of environental pressures does not mean that modern cockroaches hae not evolved at all. They clearly have.

The above is another example of how advances in DNA sequencing are confirming / answering questions about the evolutuonary processes of a great many species of animals, insects, birds and reptiles. Including humans.

Scientific literature does contain dozens of other examples of speciation events in plants, insects and worms.

In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection - for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits - and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders.

For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.

Scientists have also directly observed that mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. To use the fruit fly example above, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their very existence and development demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures and changes to anatomy, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

More speciation occurs and the two new species move further apart in gene structure, physiology and so on.

That is evoluton in action and it is very clear that evolution cexists.

Molecular biology has also discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond the point of the mutations described above, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in new ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features hence creating new species with different anatomies. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

The above, as well as many other observed examples as well as overwhelming genetic evidence, aptly demonstrate that evolution occurs.

DNA testing suggests that macroevolution (what we might also called common descent) also very likely occurs.

Of course, examples of common descent have not been directly observed because no one was there to observe it over such a long period of time (the same problem that exists when there is no direct eyewitness in a murder trial). However the above empirical evidence (which is only a tiny fraction of the evidence that has been gathered) clearly shows that speciation with different genetic mutations influencing anatomy can occur and has been observed to occur.

So based on our understanding and observations of genetics, it is very reasonable to think that it is possible for large-scale changes to occur and that there are no rational reasons or contrary evidence to support the idea that they can't occur.

It is therefore also logical and reasonable to conclude that in the absence of something to prevent it, a succession of speciation events (which do occur - we have observed them in action) would eventually lead to a divergence where descendant organisms would be classified in different genera, families, orders, etc., as per the biological classifications I outlined earlier.

Again the evidence for evolution is there and it is vast.

Molecular biologists, geneticists and chemists will keep adding to the vast catalogue of empirical evidence supporting both the fact and theory of evolution.

NOT ONE PIECE of the millions of pieces of evidence gathered up to this point have falsified evolution. Not one.

It only takes one piece of contrary evidence to falsify evolution. If you're so sure that evolution doesn't occur, present just ONE piece of evidence that falsifies evolution.



Of course it won't be. It's made up rubbish.



See above for explanation of how sexual reproduction first occurred.

Here's an example of how it was done.

The volvocine green algae is a family of present-day species that nicely illustrates the evolutionary transition from a single-celled organism without very distinct sexes, to a multi-cellular one with genuine males and females. To study this evolutionary process, biologists can compare a present-day single-cell species, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, with its much larger, multi-cellular relative, Volvox carteri. Volvox has males and females, while Chlamydomonas doesn't; by comparing the two, we can learn about how sexes evolve.

Chlamydomonas sex is typical for a single-cell sexual organism: primitive. These algae come in two different "mating types," called "plus" and "minus." Instead of issuing specialized male and female reproductive cells, this organism transforms its entire one-celled self into a gamete and seeks out a partner of the opposite mating type. Like two poles of a magnet, "plus" and "minus" organisms aren't that different from each other. The differences that do exist serve mainly to allow one mating type to recognize and fuse with the other.

Volvox sex, on the other hand, is surprisingly familiar. These algae, made up of about 2,000 cells, exist as distinct males and females. The males produce sperm that fertilize the eggs of the females, producing a zygote that develops into an embryo. Sound familiar? This whole reproductive process evolved from scratch in algae within the last 200 million years, during a time when reptiles, amphibians, mammals—descended from a long line of sexually reproducing ancestors—were roaming the Earth. The two sexes of Volvox are an evolutionary rerun.

Scientists observed that distinct sexes have evolved repeatedly in life's history, and the result is nearly always the same: females who produce relatively few large, immobile eggs, and males who produce many small, mobile sperm. To understand the genetic basis of Volvox males and females, the researchers tried swapping genes between the sexes.

They were interested in one gene in particular, called MID. Male Volvox have this gene, while the females don't. This gene exists in single-celled algae as well, where it acts as a master mating type switch that prevents "minus" from turning into "plus." The scientists reasoned that MID might do something similar in Volvox. They transferred a copy of this male-specific gene into females, which became pseudo-males and started making sperm. And when they deleted MID from the males, the algae became pseudo-females and started making eggs. Their results show that this master switch gene "control two very different manifestations of sexual reproduction." This gene was reprogrammed from a simple regulator of primitive mating types into one that controls the major differences between females and males.

The oldest and most fundamental way that males and females differ is in their reproductive cells. Once you have sex-specific reproductive cells, new sex-specific evolutionary strategies come into play. These drive the development of even more physical and behavioral differences between males and females. New genes fall under the control of the master switch to become sex-specific genes. In Volvox, about a dozen genes are found only in males or females. In humans, there are about 80 protein-coding genes on the Y chromosome that are specific to men. The human master switch is called SRY, and like MID in Volvox, its primary job is to switch on the genetic program to produce sperm.




No they don't. See above.



See above. There are many fertile hybrid species. New species in nature appear all the time. Forests with high levels of biodiversity become a cauldron of new species in continuous transformation. The best known mechanism for the formation of new species of animals or plants is the accumulation of genetic mutations in the offspring of the same species. New species may also result from the clustering of populations of different species that were once separated.



All this statement confirms (yet again) is that you don't understand evolution. Probably sheep give birth to sheep because they are mated with sheep. That's what animal husbandry is.



Oh? Are you referring to the study of abiogenesis?

Abiogenesis, the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter is a growing field. The occurrence of abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, however its possible mechanisms are debated.

In the 1950s, several experiments by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey verified that the natural formation of amino acids, components of proteins, and other organic compounds out of inorganic materials was possible under the atmospheric conditions of Primordial Earth.

In 2001 Jennifer Blank at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory reported: "Through subsequent chemical analysis, the team discovered that the initial amino acids in the mixture had linked together to form peptides, from which proteins can be formed."

A 2015 paper from a a team of chemists working at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, at Cambridge in the UK, published in the journal Nature Chemistry, showed that the chemical precursors for the synthesis of amino acids, lipids and nucleotides, which would be required in a primitive cell, could have all arisen simultaneously through reactions driven by ultraviolet light.

In 2015, NASA scientists studying the origin of life managed to reproduce uracil, cytosine, and thymine (all building blocks of life) from an ice sample containing pyrimidine under conditions found in space.

A 2016 study showed that the building blocks of life can be replicated in deep-sea vents. These experiments have for the first time demonstrated that RNA molecules can form in alkaline hydrothermal chimneys.

And while none of the above is conclusive, empirical evidence for the possibility of abiogenesis existing does exist.

I'm prepared to wait for more evidence of abiogenesis rather than adopting the belief system of "Scientists can't exactly explain the origin of life yet, therefore it must have been God and more specifically, the version of God I believe in."

And as I've said the scientific community overwhelmingly recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, (LUCA), of ALL living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. (355 genes according to a 2016 study). It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence (yet) about how LUCA arose from a boiling cauldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. That's abiogenesis.

Some may well believe 'divine intervention' by a 'creator god' put LUCA there (even though there is absolutely no evidence to support this).

It's also very possible that LUCA arose from non-life without divine intervention. Certainly there is scientific evidence that the second option was very possible. That evidence suggests that it is very possible that those chemicals reacted in some way to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today. Finding out how exactly, remains the object of on-going scientific study across the world.

My point is that there is an accumulating amount of solid scientific evidence that is backing up 'abiogenesis' in preference to the hypothesis of a supernatural origin for life (which of course is unverifiable and therefore not a scientific hypothesis.) To believe in a supernatural origin for life is based on nothing but 'faith'.

Abiogenesis is definitely proved possible, so the only questions that remain are:

• What is the probability that abiogenesis will happen in a certain suitable environment in a certain period of time?
• What is the exact mechanism by which abiogenesis occurs?

quality comeback

 

[Number37]

Question for Atheists....
Is religion a scientific theory?

 

[sdfc]

Evolution relies on both random mutations and non-random natural selection. There doesn't need to be a god guiding the process when environmental factors work to select for beneficial heritable traits and against maladaptive traits.

If god created us 'as is' or guided our evolution, why did he create humans and other species with flaws?

The arrival of the fittest v the survival of the fittest.

 

[Aristotle Pickett the3rd]

The whole idea of there being a god is absurd to scientists because there is no evidence of it.
How does the christian reconcile this .

 

[Evolved1]

Question for Atheists....
Is religion a scientific theory?

No. It's a conspiracy theory.

 

[Evolved1]

The arrival of the fittest v the survival of the fittest.

Religions compete for survival too. Christianity has a reproductive mechanism through evangelism.

 

[sdfc]

Religions compete for survival too. Christianity has a reproductive mechanism through evangelism.

Christianity is a social construct. Evolution through random mutation is basically a shit happens theory.

 

[Total Power]

Christianity is a social construct. Evolution through random mutation is basically a sh*t happens theory.

Doesn't everything evolve? (for good or for bad) The universe, behaviour, culture, music, fashion even religions. Christianity today isn't the same as it was in 200 AD or even 500 years ago. Evolution is natural and applies to everything as nothing is constant. Put it on a scale of 4 billion years, the results will be vastly different to what we have observed as humans.

 

[carltonchelsea]

Criticism is healthy. Normalising dehumanising bias isn’t. I wasn’t intending to suggest that you were promoting such conduct; I did use your response to springboard a point, or 2. My apologies for that.

The Abrahamics have been doing this since it’s inception, now they’re copping a little bit of their own medicine, their poor feel feels get all hurty hurt and they strike back with unconstitutional laws world wide.
Progress is antithetical to the adherents of Abraham, it challenges their deep rooted desire to control and patrol thought, action and need.
The original “authoritarians“.
”If you don’t believe the way I do, I’ll change the rules so that you suffer the way that I feel I have to”.
It’s unparalleled in its patheticness and it will continue until it’s destroyed, one way or another and I aim to be on the end of the shovel that turns over the ashes of it into the beautiful the new progressive life enriched soil.
The abrahamics only want for the time after that they cannot provide evidence for nor a reason why it should exist, because it’s exposes their weak underbelly for the tarian in the author of a collection of books from a place they destroyed several times over and continue to.
Shitty books should be called out for what they are and the desert trilogy is lower than shit, they ****ing worship a bloke that was prepared to stick a ****ing knife into the heart of his eldest son, because idiot moron cave-expelled dickhead man heard voices!
What a cracking shitstorm of single digit fingered .IQ I deal with.
Lolza

 

[Evolved1]

Christianity is a social construct. Evolution through random mutation is basically a sh*t happens theory.

Not really. Shit happens, some good and some bad. If the shit that happens to you gives you an adaptive edge, you're more likely to live longer, find a mate, and breed. Hence your shit gets passed on to your progeny which gives us little shits.

Religions compete for survival too. The most fit religions survive while others die off. Having a means of reproduction, like Christianity has, gives it an edge over many other religions.

 

[Evolved1]

Doesn't everything evolve? (for good or for bad) The universe, behaviour, culture, music, fashion even religions. Christianity today isn't the same as it was in 200 AD or even 500 years ago. Evolution is natural and applies to everything as nothing is constant. Put it on a scale of 4 billion years, the results will be vastly different to what we have observed as humans.

Muh absolute truth is unchanging.

 

[sdfc]

Not really. sh*t happens, some good and some bad. If the sh*t that happens to you gives you an adaptive edge, you're more likely to live longer, find a mate, and breed. Hence your sh*t gets passed on to your progeny which gives us little shits.

Religions compete for survival too. The most fit religions survive while others die off. Having a means of reproduction, like Christianity has, gives it an edge over many other religions.

Evolution through random changes in the arrangements of amino acids that create creatures that are able to outcompete their forbears is a theory based on pure uncertainty.

 

[Evolved1]

Evolution through random changes in the arrangements of amino acids that create creatures that are able to outcompete their forbears is a theory based on pure uncertainty.

Evolution is a fairly simple concept. Mutation leading to selective pressure leading to survival. Billions of years worth of uncertain outcomes under selective pressure from probability based outcomes produces something far closer to certainty than mere randomness.

Do you think antibiotic resistant bacteria evolved through winning a genetic lottery?

Life is a game of probability. Those who play the odds well usually win.

 

[Number37]

Here's an example

Biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant had been studying finches since 1973 on an island called Daphne Major in the Galapagos. When they first began their studies, only two species of Finch lived on Daphne Major: the medium ground finch and the cactus finch. But, in 1981, they noticed that an odd new finch had arrived at the island. It was a hybrid, a mix between a cactus finch and a medium ground finch. It had an extra large beak, an unusual hybrid genome, and a new kind of song. But somehow it was still able to find a mate. The female also had some hybrid chromosomes of her own. So their offspring were very different from the other birds on the island. The biologists observed that after four finch generations, (about four-five years) a drought killed off many of the birds on Daphne Major. In fact, almost the entire hybrid line was exterminated. Only a brother and sister pair remained. The two family members mated with each other, producing offspring that were even more unique than their parent line. From that point on, it was observed the odd population of finches mated only with each other. They were never seen to breed with the cactus finches or the medium ground finches on the island. The hybrid finches had become a brand new species. Macroevolution at the smallest scale in action.

Those were found to be completely reversible natural variations.
Descent with modification requires an improvement that is not reversible.


Despite your repeated claims that there exists DIRECT evidence of macro evolution, there isn't any direct evidence.
You also claim that micro evolution proves macro evolution, it doesn't. It could.

One of the things that stands in the way of macro evolution being proven is the fossil record. That's not to say that macro evolution can't be proven without the fossil record. There are many reasons that there might exist gaps in the fossil record, the most basic of which is that some things just don't fossilize as well as others.
Scanella & Horner's Toroceratops hypothesis is a good example that filling the gaps of the fossil record with theory can lead to all kinds of outcomes.
In case you can't be bothered reading about that theory...2 different dinosaurs that Scanella's theory say is just the same dinosaur at different ages because there is no fossil record of the young of one of the dinosaurs. The theory is highly speculative.
I reference that theory because it illustrates the use of missing fossils/fossils we don't have as data.

 

[Total Power]

Evolution through random changes in the arrangements of amino acids that create creatures that are able to outcompete their forbears is a theory based on pure uncertainty.

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean one group is fighting against another group through competition. - "Survival of the fittest" refers to those organisms better suited to the current environment. If you fit your environmental niche better than other competitive species, your survival is more likely.

However, Natural selection is all about being able to develop specific traits that become more prominent or normalized because of changing conditions.

Think giraffe. At one point, they had shorter necks and competed for food with a larger group of animals. But they were not the fittest of the species because other animals were better at getting food at their level than they were.

In danger of dying out, natural selection kicked in and the giraffes who had longer necks found that they could reach food higher up where there was less competition. Over time, longer necks became normal because shorter necked giraffes were competed out of the gene pool.


"It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change." -Darwin

 

[carltonchelsea]

Evolution is a fairly simple concept. Mutation leading to selective pressure leading to survival. Billions of years worth of uncertain outcomes under selective pressure from probability based outcomes produces something far closer to certainty than mere randomness.

Do you think antibiotic resistant bacteria evolved through winning a genetic lottery?

Life is a game of probability. Those who play the odds well usually win.

“No but Jesus”
FMD, that’s all they have.
Oooooooooooooooooodavidgulpilil, with respect to my elders iand after thought in advance,
What a bizzare world we live in.
Im gonna play chess
I literally see no saviour….,,
I just don’t.
You do..,,
Prove it campaigner

 

[Number37]

No. It's a conspiracy theory.

Religion is a scientific theory according to Dawkins.

Surely you're not disagreeing with the Grand Poobar of Atheism?