I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.
Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.
But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''
It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.
There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.
Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.
Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?
You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.
The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).
1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.
I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.
Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.
Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?
Astargarth makes a very good post here: He provides some solid evidence that evolution exists. However your rebuttal seems to be "well we didn't see it happen, so it's false".
But this logic applies directly to your belief that humans were spontaneously created by god - if this was true, you need to provide evidence of spontaneous generation of life yourself, to raise your evidence to the same level as that of Astargarth.
But you can't, because no such evidence exists. It's all very well to say "this might have happened", but without any evidence you are automatically behind in the argument, because anyone can say "this might have happened" - that doesn't give them any sort of credibility.
And I'm asking for evidence that it happened, I know no one can go back in time to see it happen, no one can go back in time to see evolution happening that's why we have evidence that points to evolution. If all the evidence that points to evolution is wrong it would be logical to at least have the same amount of evidence for the spontaneous generation of life which is what is claimed to be true, how is it possible to have 0 evidence for what is supposed to be true and a ton of evidence for what is supposed to be a hoax. Weird
As I said, the evidence for the existence of evolution, ALL fits evidence and proof for other things much better than it fits evolution. The greatest of the "other things" is cause and effect... which essentially equates with programming. Programming says that there is a programmer. And a programmer of the magnitude that it would take to program something as complex as the physics of the universe - so that the universe could actually come into being through the programming - fits the description of God.
If evolution scientists had simply missed cause and effect, evolution might not be a hoax. But all the scientists know about C&E, and that there really isn't any pure random (true spontaneity) anywhere. Because they all know this, and yet proclaim that evolution is real, evolution has become a hoax... and a religion for the ignorant people.
