A Question which Atheists could not answer

[Independent]

Try to read what is written so we're not constantly repeating ourselves!

I did indeed read what you wrote and it's a pile of nonsense - such nonsense that you are unable to put up any defence or explanation for your own words.

It's practically the only specific thing you've said in this entire thread that's actually related to someone's question, so that's a pity you can't support it.

 

[جوري]

I did indeed read what you wrote and it's a pile of nonsense

It is clear you need some basic courses as to not embarrass yourself so publicly, not understanding concepts doesn't make them nonsense, it just makes you ignorant, for that and generally before you gauge a topic clearly over your head familiarize yourself with basic molecular biology and biochemistry!
As for support, well honestly you introduce TOE a concept I have clearly said was pseudo scientific and expect me to bail you out of the hole you dug for yourself? That's comical!

best,

 

[Independent]

you introduce TOE a concept I have clearly said was pseudo scientific and expect me to bail you out of the hole you dug for yourself?

You have introduced your own entirely original version of TOE which I would love to hear you explain more about. Unfortunately it seems you haven't a clue why you said it in the first place.

I shall leave you to deliver your concluding insult, as is your custom.

 

[جوري]

You have introduced your own entirely original version of TOE which I would love to hear you explain more about. Unfortunately it seems you haven't a clue why you said it in the first place.

Rather I have posited some of the basic concepts TOE need to have worked out in its details to be closer to what we call science!
the latter I'll relegate to your inner child looking for an easy escape!

best,

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer;

your focus on bones got me reading and actually there's a lot of evidence for how bones evolved, and it's surprisingly simple:

I read through the complete article, and as you say it is surprisingly simple, it just says this happened, that happened. The whole article seemed no more informative than the Genesis story of creation in the Bible, which just says God created. The difference is the following is supposed to be part of a scientific paper,

Following the violent moves of tectonic plates about 1.5 billion (1.5 × 109) years ago, huge amounts of minerals, including CaCO3, were washed into the oceans. This created the possibility for its inhabitants of developing hard body parts, such as shells or spines. At first, this helped unicellular organisms to cope with excessive amounts of minerals and to prevent over-crusting. It also led to the sharp increase in the diversity of multicellular organisms (and their fossils!) a little more than 0.5 billion years ago, known as the “Cambrian explosion” (Schopf 1994, Kawasaki et al. 2004). Furthermore, the appearance of a rigid outside skeleton extended the effective length of limbs, thus permitting more rapid locomotion in many organisms. The appearance of mineralized body parts is seen by many scientists as one of the forces that generally increased the pace of animal evolution (Kumar and Hedges 1998,Kutschera and Niklas 2004).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3237026/

see also http://neurodojo.blogspot.com.es/2010/05/beginnings-of-bone.html for a quick summary and links to other relevant papers.

If we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept evolution?

Sadly my answer is no, I guess I am one of those annoying creationists. The first sentence in the Bible says; ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ This is either a profound truth, or the biggest lie.

The creation of the universe is history, there cannot be a maybe or possible God, its yes or no.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

I have tried to be precise in my statements and also to separate different types of evidence. One type of evidence is: this world has the appearance you would expect if TOE correct. The phylogenetics, the chronology, the geology etc etc. This is why most scientists are sure evolution has in fact taken place.

We are back at the beginning of the circle. To reiterate some of the points:

- The phylogenetics, the chronology, the geology etc. merely provide a general trend. It is an observation, not an evidence. It can be just as consistent with Creationism than is suggested with TOE.
- The notion of an 'expected' world appearance for TOE is dubious because inconsistent findings do exist; the theory is simply amended (or new ones synthesised) to account for them and make them fit.
- Rather than being an observable fact, ultimately it comes down to trusting the scientists.

But the 'how' of evolution is not a finished subject. Creationists focus on the problems. They won't accept TOE until the how is complete in every detail, until every last 't' is crossed and 'i' is dotted.

As an analogy, think back to the time of Copernicus and Kepler. From the observed positions of the planets they constructed a theory that the planets rotated round the sun, not vice versa. But they didn't understand the 'how'. For that we had to wait until Newton.

Copernicus and Kepler should have been convincing enough. No other theory explained the data so well. Nevertheless, not everyone believed them. In time this position has become untenable and all but a few eccentrics now accept heliocentricity as a matter of indisputable fact.

In my view, this is parallel to the situation with TOE.

Let us look at the same example from a different perspective. The same observations - the observed positions of the planets and stars - led many to believe in a geocentric model where everything was rotating around the earth. This was once an almost universally accepted theory. It goes to show that extrapolating based on observations is not infallible, and that Creationists are justified in their questioning.

Moreover, the change in theory between planets orbiting one celestial body to another celestial body does not seem so great; the 'how' hardly poses a question. In the case of evolution, not only is the 'how' an 'unfinished subject', there are gaping holes and things don't add up.

They routinely make personal attacks and question the integrity of the scientists involved. The opposition to TOE is as fierce as anything in history.

Is this so different from what evolutionists do when Creationists present material?

This video is a good example of how not to conduct a fair debate - hassling random people in the street. Make it a fair debate with willing participants, or leave it alone.

But even in a thread such as this, I find yourself and observer admitting to the same conclusion: having faith in the scientists.

 

[Muhaba]

You seriously have to read some evolutionary text books, you are not understanding the principles at all. Have a read of "The Selfish Gene' by Dawkins.

The key point is that the world is full of survivors. If a gene doesn't get a chance to replicate, it will cease to exist. Only successful strategies persist through the generations.

It is impossible for genes to 'decide' to be only carnivores. Nature eventually tries all permutations. If there were only carnivores, that would be evidence for Creationism.


I wouldn't be sure of the physics of it but I very much doubt that an animal could make enough energy from photosynthesis to enable movement etc.

There are animal fossils found side by side, from the same time and area, yet they are so different from each other. Some are carnivores, some herbivores, some omnivores. Some have one type of features, others have entirely different features. Why did all these animals evolve differently? It's most likely that they faced similar living conditions if they lived in the same time period and area?

I haven't done the study but if you're such a hard believer in TOE that you're defending and promoting it so much then you should be able to explain the things instead of telling me to read a book. Otherwise all you've got is blind faith in the theory.

I'd like some clear explanations with examples of why different creatures and organisms living in the same conditions and same time period evolved differently. Or else you'll have to prove that the creatures / organisms didn't live in the same conditions.

 

[Independent]

The phylogenetics, the chronology, the geology etc. merely provide a general trend. It is an observation, not an evidence. It can be just as consistent with Creationism than is suggested with TOE.

Absolutely not, that's the point I keep making, and which i will explain again.

The same observations - the observed positions of the planets and stars - led many to believe in a geocentric model where everything was rotating around the earth. This was once an almost universally accepted theory. It goes to show that extrapolating based on observations is not infallible, and that Creationists are justified in their questioning.

No, the quality of the observations improved, and also the quality of the analysis.

In earlier ages it's hardly surprising people assumed it was the sun that rotated through the sky above them, rather than the entire earth moving under their feet. A geocentric-world-view starting point was almost guaranteed.

As accurate astronomical observations were taken, it became possible to understand that these only made sense if you placed the sun at the centre of the system, rather than the earth. Otherwise the movement of the planets in our skies was just crazy. Copernicus laid this out clearly but he made a mistake - partly because of theological preconceptions that the orbits should be perfect circles.

There was one annoying piece of data that wouldn't fit - the apparently erratic orbit of Mars . It was Kepler's great insight to understand that this was because the planets move in ellipses, not perfect circles. When he reconstructed the model based on this pattern, everything worked.

So, it is not simply a matter of different conclusions from the same data. It's not arbitrary.Tthe data improved, and the quality of the analysis. In the end there was only one possible solution.

It goes to show that extrapolating based on observations is not infallible, and that Creationists are justified in their questioning

Not so, for the reason given above. This is the way science progresses. It was clear that Copernicus was on the right track, but the truth was that not all the data fitted. The orbit of Mars was his equivalent of 'irreducible complexity'. But instead of giving up on the whole thing, along came Kepler and the problem was solved. That's the kind of journey we're on with TOE and it's a thriller that should be exciting the whole world.

The phylogenetics, the chronology, the geology etc. merely provide a general trend. It is an observation, not an evidence. It can be just as consistent with Creationism than is suggested with TOE.

To look at this same point from another perspective: the species data reveals a certain pattern, just as the data about the planets revealed a pattern. It's not arbitrary. It's unique. There are any number of explanations that don't fit all the data. But only one that does.

The single most important feature of that pattern is the order - that species and individual characteristics only appear in a connected time and place. You can say that there are problems with the model that need to be answered. For instance your example - does the Cambrian Explosion show speciation happening too fast for the hypothetical mechanism? But there's no reason to assume this is insoluble, any more than Kepler's revision of Copernicus's (almost right) theory. What would be a challenge is if the species were in entirely the wrong order or randomly distributed. This is what we never see. Instead, we see a pattern of slow progress and development, that only makes sense if you assume that each stage can only take place after the previous stages have already happened.

None of this is necessary in a Creationist world. A God can create the world in any number of ways - all in one go, or in rapid stages. Or He could create them over a longer period, but without the limitation of having to follow stages of development (He wouldn't need this). He could even create species in alphabetical order based on the names of animals in Arabic. There are so many possibilities. But the pattern we do see is the only one predicted by TOE. Is that coincidence? I don't think so. At the moment no Creationist is even attempting to explain it (except groups like the Young Earthers who are thereby in conflict with almost every aspect of science).

Why did He pick this particular order, knowing it would lead to confusion? Why is evolution an impossible mechanism for God to devise? Are God's powers limited, can He not create a system of evolution that works, even if we haven't managed to work out all the mechanisms? Therefore i believe it is not reasonable to say evolution is impossible, as many Creationists do.

 

[Independent]

I'd like some clear explanations with examples of why different creatures and organisms living in the same conditions and same time period evolved differently. Or else you'll have to prove that the creatures / organisms didn't live in the same conditions.

Trying to put this simply: we start from a single celled creature. It multiplies into millions. But they don't always replicate exactly the same, little differences appear. Some of them mutate in multicelled creatures. But the laws of physics and chemistry won't allow infinite combinations - perhaps there are 10 possibilities this first time. Most of them willl eventually occur however because there are so many billions of opportunities.

Now we have a number of slightly different creatures. This process continues with further stages of development, each time with a different set of permutations. But each new development has to be built on the frame of what's happened before. After awhile the gap, the divergence becomes too big to bridge. That's why a cow can't turn into a wolf, there are just so many steps taken along their different paths.

All these creatures are living in the same world but are now differentiating. And as they move into the huge range of environments around the world, their differences will turn out to be advantages or disadvantages.

I haven't done the study but if you're such a hard believer in TOE that you're defending and promoting it so much then you should be able to explain the things instead of telling me to read a book. Otherwise all you've got is blind faith in the theory

If I kept asking you questions about Islam, sooner or later you're going to tell me to read a book. The Qur'an.

You're going to say I don't understand enough about Islam to make a fair criticism. If TOE is my religion (as people ridiculously keep repeating) then it's my right to ask the same of you.

 

[جوري]

Trying to put this simply

That's always been your problem innit? drawing satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusions. Try to not put it simply next time and let us know how a single cell goes into multi cell without a host

best,

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you observer,

If we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept evolution?

Maybe I could ask you a similar question, 'if we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept God?

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[glo]

^
Are the two statements mutually exclusive??

I believe in God and accept evolution theory as the most likely explanation for the development of life as we know it.
And I am not the only one.

 

[greenhill]

Are the two statements mutually exclusive??

Depends on the definition.

Whether it is a continuous chain of evolution from a single cell into what we are and have today or whether each different specie was 'created' but evolved into various 'strands' so to speak.

That is as simple as I can make it. But it seems that the 'say' is still not over :argue:

;D


eace:

 

[observer]

Maybe I could ask you a similar question, 'if we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept God?

Why would that prove god? You've made skeletal formation something of a be-all-and-end-all issue for yourself and evolution, I don't se why it would make me believe in god.

There are plenty of ways that I could be made to believe in god: I've never seen any of them.

 

[observer]

If we discover the complete process of skeletal formation, would you accept evolution?
Sadly my answer is no, I guess I am one of those annoying creationists. The first sentence in the Bible says; ‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.’ This is either a profound truth, or the biggest lie.

So hang on Eric, you're challenging evolutionists to prove the development of the skeleton if they want to justify their argument, and then you say that you wouldn't accept it even if they did? So why ask them to do it?

If you believe god said "let it be" and it was, then fair enough. To say "prove this to me" and then declare that you will reject any proof seems nonsensical.

 

[observer]

Are the two statements mutually exclusive??

No, definitely not.

I believe in God and accept evolution theory as the most likely explanation for the development of life as we know it.
And I am not the only one.

If there is an all powerful god, he would surely be capable of arranging the system of evolution. This is why it seems strange to me that such vehemence is brought to bear against ToE. If you believe god did everything, he must have done that as well.

 

[Karl]

^
Are the two statements mutually exclusive??

I believe in God and accept evolution theory as the most likely explanation for the development of life as we know it.
And I am not the only one.

Well then there will be no need for a Creator in that case as everything evolves and creates itself. That is the hub of TOE. Carl Sagan an atheist used to say "If God made the universe then who made God?" So from a scientific perspective, because of the lack of data, either faith in God/s or nihilism can remain.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Independent,

The two main issues that are causing disagreement are the following:

1. Macroevolution being pushed as fact
...based on a broad trend indicating that species appear in a particular order and pattern. The order may show which creatures lived at which time, but it does not prove common ancestry. You said earlier that it is a case of the 'balance of probability' being 'very strong'. A balance of probability is far from being fact. Common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion. It requires faith in the scientists.

To look at this same point from another perspective: the species data reveals a certain pattern, just as the data about the planets revealed a pattern. It's not arbitrary. It's unique. There are any number of explanations that don't fit all the data. But only one that does.

But the pattern we do see is the only one predicted by TOE. Is that coincidence? I don't think so.

TOE was put in place as a means of interpreting and understanding the existing world of animals and their fossils. Rather than predicting the pattern, the pattern was what inspired the theory in the first place. With this in mind, it would be no surprise that the theory is closely connected to the pattern.

It may also be worth mentioning that the theory is not one of solid lines but rather much uncertainty. Despite the fact that many fossil hominids have been discovered since Darwin's day, scientists cannot yet be absolutely certain as to the best evolutionary arrangement of these species.

For instance your example - does the Cambrian Explosion show speciation happening too fast for the hypothetical mechanism? But there's no reason to assume this is insoluble, any more than Kepler's revision of Copernicus's (almost right) theory.

The point about the Cambrian explosion is that new theories have to be synthesised to account for unexpected findings. This is in contrast to what you say about everything appearing in the way TOE predicts.


2. The notion that the Creationist view is discredited by these findings

None of this is necessary in a Creationist world. A God can create the world in any number of ways - all in one go, or in rapid stages. Or He could create them over a longer period, but without the limitation of having to follow stages of development (He wouldn't need this). He could even create species in alphabetical order based on the names of animals in Arabic. There are so many possibilities. But the pattern we do see is the only one predicted by TOE. Is that coincidence? I don't think so.

Creationists have never expected a random or illogical distribution; it is the very fact that things are organised and consistent that confirm the existence of a Creator. Creationists do not oppose the notion of God creating laws in the universe, so the fact that development follows stages is totally consistent with a Creationist worldview.

Interestingly, when we consider pre-Darwinian ideas, Linnaeus believed that a logical creator had created an ordered world which could be understood. Linnaeus’ work was crucial, as the structured relationship that he saw as evidence of God’s plan was reinterpreted by Darwin as evidence of different degrees of shared ancestry.

Why did He pick this particular order, knowing it would lead to confusion?

God has told us very clearly about our origins. If people have chosen to ignore that and fallen into confusion as a result of placing their faith elsewhere, they have only themselves to blame.

So, it is not simply a matter of different conclusions from the same data. It's not arbitrary.Tthe data improved, and the quality of the analysis. In the end there was only one possible solution.

Coming back to the Copernicus-Kepler analogy, the main point you were making was that the 'how' can be overlooked so long as the observations can be explained. It is this principle which was the focus. The number of possible solutions and the quality of the analysis was irrelevant (one could argue that future improvements in analysis may change the theory yet again). I was pointing out that this very principle caused (what is now considered to be) an erroneous belief to be held for centuries, so it is not always a reliable one. The bottom line from this is that observations can have more than one interpretation and it is valid to question the 'how' before making judgement.

In the case of evolution, anatomical or genetic similarities between species can just as well mean they were created by the same Creator rather than indicate common ancestry. It is not true that there is only one possible solution based on the observation.

Not so, for the reason given above. This is the way science progresses. It was clear that Copernicus was on the right track, but the truth was that not all the data fitted. The orbit of Mars was his equivalent of 'irreducible complexity'. But instead of giving up on the whole thing, along came Kepler and the problem was solved. That's the kind of journey we're on with TOE and it's a thriller that should be exciting the whole world.

It is strange... science progresses through asking questions and yet here you insist that only one solution is possible, questions should not be asked and that estimating and inferring is an infallible process. This is unscientific and more ideological. Have a look at this: http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/about.php
There are hundreds upon hundreds of scientists who believe that careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged. Clearly they too are not convinced by being told to ignore the 'how'.

You are also stretching the analogy too far. Celestial movement is something that all of us can see and witness for ourselves but macroevolution is not. It is far easier to test claims about phenomena we see every day than claims of occurrences millions of years ago. The other criticisms I mentioned also stand - in the case of TOE, we are not dealing with a slight revision of an almost correct theory.

 

[~Zaria~]

Trying to find out where we come from. Nothing more, nothing less.

Unfortunately the answers to our origins and purpose does not lie in fossilized specimens that are often either mis-classified intentionally or unintentionally by scientists with highly over-active imaginations.

We can accept that everything that we see around us has a developer/ 'maker' who is identifiable and who provides an instruction manual for the use of the item.

Yet, when it comes to the development of the universe and ourselves, we find it difficult to believe that our Creator has indeed identified Himself and that He has sent down revelation to teach us about Himself, our origins and purpose.

What I don't like is the savagery exhibited by some creationists as they try to discredit evolution. It's dishonest, illogical and counter-factual.

Thus far, all that has been shown to be 'dishonest, illogical and counter-factual', has come from the evolutionists corner.

• There are multiple examples of either fake or mis-classified fossils in attempts to bridge the gaps in TOE. (Dishonest)
• There is no biologically plausible explanation for the process of evolution to occur, at all. (Illogical)
• Not a single creature has been observed to be in the phases of evolving into a completely new species. (Counter-factual)

I will refer to this methodology as 'D.I.C' from now on.

"It seems too complicated so I don't believe it." That's not an argument.

Im yet to hear a creationist make this argument.

Our arguments are based on 'D.I.C'.

T
Nebraska Man

Here's how Foard describes him:

The twentieth century is full of dethroned "ape-men" who never existed outside of evolutionist imagination, such as Nebraska Man, a pig

Contrary to the impression given here, Nebraska Man was never widely accepted as a proven hominid and rejected altogether after 5 years. The only reason anyone remembers it is because its preserved in Creationist literature //


To summarise:

1. Nebraskan Man is in no way an example of an anti religion agenda or deliberate fraud.
2. Osborn himself was a decent man who was very pro Christian. The mistake he made was sincere.
3. The mistake itself was not as great as suggested. He never called the fossil a man, and even at the peak of his error regarded it as a previously unknown primate.
4. To describe the fossil as simply 'a pig' as Foard does is deceptive, it sounds like farmyard remains. In fact it dates from long before any farmyard ever existed. It is a genuine fossil but that of a peccary, a pig ancestor (which does have some resemblance to human teeth although it should not have been mistaken). It's also not true that Osborn called him an 'ape man'. All of this comes from Foard (or rather, it's repeated by Foard from other Creationist sources.)
5. The scientific reception was cautious and it never achieved acceptance. Within a short timescale for a pre internet period, the fossil was decisively rejected.
6. It played no part in mainstream evolutionary thinking then or now.
7. Even the name and the ever popular illustration had nothing to do with evolution.

Far from occupying a key place in the 'evolutionist imagination' as Foard calls it, the fossil in fact has achieved fame and immortality only in the imagination of Creationists.

Thanks for the lovely story behind the Nebraska pig.

An alternative summary:

1. Before any scientific information/ 'evidence' is released for public consumption, it remains the responsibility of the investigators to verify, and then re-verify, their findings.

2. Its difficult enough to identify an animal from a single tooth.
Let alone an extinct species. This in itself indicates how ridiculous the entire premise was.

3. When Cook wrote to Osborn, he said that he had found a tooth “that very closely approaches the human type.”:
This is the tooth:

This was Osborns initial reaction: "The instant your package arrived, I sat down with the tooth, in my window, and I said to myself: “It looks one hundred per cent anthropoid.”

Amazingly, from this one tooth, they came to this conclusion:

"The analysis by the three scientists supported the ape as an intermediate offshoot between Dryopithecus, the hypothesized ancestor of the living African apes, and Sivapithecus, a fossil ape from Asia close to our own lineage."
​

and they already gave a name to this imaginary genus: “Hesperopithecus” .


4. It took 5 years to finally put this case to rest because: "In 1923 Gregory and Hellman wrote a second paper to defend the hypothesis that Hesperopithecus was truly a fossil ape.


^ This is not a mistake.

This is called intentional deception and fraud.

I have repeatedly said that all fossils are evidence for TOE in the sense that no fossil yet found contradicts the overall logic and pattern (although of course they revise the detail). If you think one does, tell us.

I am no better at posting links to fossil websites than you. But if it makes you happy, this one is pretty: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/3d-collection

You have linked us to a site with pictures of skulls.....I stopped at the first 'fossil evidence': A.L 444-2

It says:


[TABLE="class: views-view-grid col-2"]
[TR="class: row-1 row-first row-last"]
[TD="class: col-1 col-first"]This large male skull was found at the same locality as the famous Lucy skeleton. It is much bigger than the skull of Lucy and other females of this species, indicating there were differences in body size between the sexes.
Australopithecus afarensis [/TD]
[TD="class: col-last"]

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]



^ The fact that they can still reference "Lucy" - a fossil that was shown to belong to a chimpanzee, and continue to classify it as well as this specimen under the fancy name of Australopithecus afarensis, tells us alot.

It is evident that you have no idea of any genuine 'fossil evidences', yet you continue to promote this false science to others?

Just out of interest, here is the pic of AL 444-2:

^ Theres more missing parts to this skull than the black synthetic material used to fill it in.

Exactly how this specimen (and the others like it) can fall anywhere along the development lines of man remains a mystery to those who give thought.

Evolution is simple in essence, those animals better suited to their environments survive and thrive. Those that aren't, die. It's been said over, and over, and over in this thread that evolution does not have all the answers, but it has a lot of evidence to point us in the right direction. At the end of the day, you either trust what scientists are telling us (99% of scientists) or you don't. You clearly don't.

Why do elephants have trunks? Because it conferred an advantage upon their ancestors and they received the trait. Why are some animals carnivores? Likewise. There is no special reason with evolution - things are as they are because they helped animals live and therefore breed.

^ Would you mind referencing your many claims?

• What 'evidence' is there that 'points us in the right direction'?
• '99% of scientists' are telling us that evolution is true? - Where did you obtain these stats? This is simply not true.
• What do you actually mean in your last paragraph? - It makes no biological sense at all. How would this actually occur?

TOE predicts that, in the fullness of time, all available possibilities and niches will be explored. If you look at the world you find creatures not just in lush, easy environments but also the most extreme cold, hot, wet, dry, deep or shallow places. Absolutely everywhere possible. Many people make the mistake of thinking that evolution is on a course to 'higher' organisms (ultimately man). It isn't. It's simply filling all spaces available, whether that works with complex or simple creatures.

How does an uninstructed, unsupervised system predict this?
Does this occur by chance? ......to result in the balanced, perfect order that we see today?

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The phylogenetics, the chronology, the geology etc etc. This is why most scientists are sure evolution has in fact taken place.

For those who may not be well versed in scientific terminology:

'phylogenetics': "The result of phylogenetic studies is a hypothesis about the evolutionary history of taxonomic groups" (wikipedia)

^ Its all hypothesis, and will always remain so.
Lets not make it into fact as has been attempted numerously in this thread.

You cant expect us to base our beliefs and our lives on a hypothesis at best.

'chronology': The science that deals with the determination of dates and the sequence of events.

As will be shown in the next post, this too is hypothesis.

In short, nothing in this pseudo-science of evolution is verifiable, reproducible, logical or follows basic principles of investigation and science.

If it does, it still is in the 'hypothesis' phase - a very imaginative hypothesis.....with highly questionable attempts to back it up by 'evidence'.

But the 'how' of evolution is not a finished subject. Creationists focus on the problems. They won't accept TOE until the how is complete in every detail, until every last 't' is crossed and 'i' is dotted.

We are not even focusing on the details of the 'how' of evolution.

Even the broad theoretical principles for evolution to occur are not biologically feasible, not reproducible.....in fact, impossible.

Please refer to previous posts for this discussion.

.

No, it's the constant rolling of the dice that discovers new forms.

I cant believe you have even said this.

With the types of answers we are receiving in this thread, how are we expected to take anything in evolution seriously?

Just useless words to describe your feelings and no science whatsoever..
This isn't the first grade where you're meant to describe what you see..

best,

Couldn't agree more sister.

 

[~Zaria~]

This site of the 'Timeline of Human Evolution' was linked by Independant:

This is just the first part of it.

Let us all read it with an open mind and describe what we feel thereafter:

Timeline

First living beings

[TABLE="class: wikitable"]
[TR]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]4000 Ma
(million
years ago)[/TD]
[TD]The earliest life appears. Further information: Abiogenesis[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]3900 Ma[/TD]
[TD]Cells resembling prokaryotes appear. This marks the first appearance of photosynthesis and therefore the first occurrence of large quantities of oxygen on the earth. Further information: Cell (biology)#Evolution[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2500 Ma[/TD]
[TD]First organisms to utilize oxygen. By 2400 Ma, in what is referred to as the Great Oxygenation Event, the pre-oxygen anaerobic forms of life were wiped out by the oxygen consumers.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]2100 Ma[/TD]
[TD]More complex cells appear: the eukaryotes. Further information: Eukaryote#Origin and evolution[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]1200 Ma[/TD]
[TD]Sexual reproduction evolves, leading to faster evolution.[SUP][1][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]900 Ma[/TD]
[TD]
Choanoflagellate


The choanoflagellates may look similar to the ancestors of the entire animal kingdom, and in particular they may be the direct ancestors of Sponges.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Proterospongia (members of the Choanoflagellata) are the best living examples of what the ancestor of all animals may have looked like.
They live in colonies, and show a primitive level of cellular specialization for different tasks.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]600 Ma[/TD]
[TD]It is thought that the earliest multicellular animal was a sponge-like creature. Sponges are among the simplest of animals, with partially differentiated tissues.
Sponges (Porifera) are the phylogenetically oldest animal phylum extant today.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]580 Ma[/TD]
[TD]Animal movement may have started with cnidarians. Almost all cnidarians possess nerves and muscles. Because they are the simplest animals to possess them, their direct ancestors were very probably the first animals to use nerves and muscles together. Cnidarians are also the first animals with an actual body of definite form and shape. They have radial symmetry. The first eyes evolved at this time.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]550 Ma[/TD]
[TD]
Flatworm


Flatworms are the earliest animals to have a brain, and the simplest animals alive to have bilateral symmetry. They are also the simplest animals with organs that form from three germ layers.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]540 Ma[/TD]
[TD]Acorn worms are considered more highly specialised and advanced than other similarly shaped worm-like creatures. They have a circulatory system with a heart that also functions as a kidney. Acorn worms have a gill-like structure used for breathing, a structure similar to that of primitive fish. Acorn worms are thus sometimes said to be a link between vertebrates and invertebrates.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

^ I'm not sure if we can consider this timeline as a 'hypothesis' or out-right fabrication?

Exactly how it is known that prokaryotes were the 'first' life forms, and appeared 3900 Million years ago.....or how eukaryotes appeared 2500 Million years ago
is an amazing feat in science.

Here is some 'evidence' with regards to 'eukaryotes' from the related link:

"The timing of this series of events is hard to determine; Knoll (2006) suggests they developed approximately 1.6–2.1 billion years ago. Some acritarchs are known from at least 1.65 billion years ago, and the possible alga Grypania has been found as far back as 2.1 billion years ago.[59]"
​

Indeed these figures and proposed order of events can be changed with any subsequent finding.
It truly is an imprecise science, if it can be called one at all.

The same can be said for the rest of the timeline as well.


Peace.