Evolution: is it necessary to know how life ultimately began in order to study and debate the evidence that evolution has since occurred? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Reflection2

The evidence does seem to be overwhelming.
Whatever else one might want to add to the theory, it appears undeniable that descent with modification explains the diversity of life on this planet.

@Pikachu Diversity of life is no issue. Why life started on earth but not on moon and Mars which are also in goldilock zone? Why water, iron fell on earth but not on them? Why only atmosphere sustainable for life developed on earth but not on mars? Why earth core ended up more effective to create maganatic shield than Mars? The gape in species evolution ( thousands of years) can ever be able to exam in more defined resolution? Why only human ended up having these traits under same environmental changed, which triggered the evolution of monkeys to human but not other species got effcted( not even slightly closed). In all other cases of evolution, group of species either evolved in closed competition or doomed as environmental changed effected all species.

Why we forget that, we are not only super duper connected in earth but as a whole we are superly connected to outside world too. Some answers we found here, some yet to find and some answers are out there, out of our reached as of now.

What exactly I am trying to say, one should be open to all possibilities base on evidence. Evolution evidence is overwhelming but creationist do ask some good questions which are yet to be find.

@Reflection2

What do questions about why earth developed certain environments have to do with evolution though?

[quote]Why only human ended up having these traits under same environmental changed[/quote]

In fact, humans do not have many unique traits. The more we learn about other animals, the more we learn that our abilities as humans are possessed by many other animals.
Emotion, fair play, tool use and so on. All present in "lower" life forms.

One should indeed be open to all explanations ... but one should be open to those explanations [i]after[/i] evidence has been presented and not before.

@Pikachu The degree of intelligence and evolving in intelligence in no matter of time, makes it a unique geological event with evolution.

While you are preparing to inhabit Mars, while monkeys have not moved an inch in past couple of millions years is also a record in geological time frame.

I will conclude here. The fact of evolutions has yet to go far as many questions are still unanswered. Whereas, creationist, even with some of their stupid questioning, still ask some good questions, which need to be reflect on. Best wishes.

@Reflection2

I have to wonder why you think monkeys should be moving towards being more intelligent.
It seems like a fundamental misunderstanding about what evolution is.
It's not a progression to a goal and certainly not a progression towards human intelligence.

@Pikachu
Nobody expect monkeys to be like us in future but it came from your argument in the form of a question.

Coming to evolution and how it develops over time. Haven't our species been through that? In such a limited time frame? How does our species evolution fits into how evolutions works- the slow process which take millions of years for rest of species. We human are strange in this regard but than, all species in their own ways.

Anyway, You miss my main point, which is, there is still lot to find. How stupid these creationist may sound to you and I (like earth being 6000 years old). Some of questions they ask are very good one. At least, to me.

@Reflection2

We're finding that evolution does not necessarily move at a steady rate. Punctuated equilibrium is one hypothesis for this.
Certain conditions like geographical isolation can cause small populations to evolve much more rapidly.

There is indeed much left to discover. But when it comes to evolution creationists don't tend to ask good questions, they tend to deny the evidence.
In my experience anyway.

@Reflection2 Thank you!

@Carazaa You are welcome

When it comes to evolution evolution is to deny the evidence when it doesn't suit them@Pikachu

@Speedyman

As always, i'm happy to debate the evidence and the relative explanatory power of creation vs evolution when describing said evidence.

As always, you will shy away from this test.

That rather explicitly tells us about who is denying evidence that doesn't suit them.
No amount of combative vitriol or obfuscation can distract from the fact that you are simply unable and/or unwilling to pit creation against evolution in a real debate.

Sorry but that's a fact.🤷🏻

The problem is that when the rocks appear in the wrong order the evolutionist changes his tune and says they are turned upside down by some process. The problem is it's the heads I win tales you lose argument. Your problem is that you are trying to constantly pick a certain type of creationism that you do not understand against the evolutionism you do not understand either . Your problem is you don't really understand anything apart from certain things you have read on the Internet . But then atheism is based on ignorance not knowledge . If you agreed some proper material it would really help you@Pikachu

I Love watching These Religious Debates They Are Hillarious

Not a religious debate mate it's a debate about facts. The fact that some of Darwin iload of old BS@JohnOinger

@Speedyman Radio dating! Doesn't matter if the older rock lies above the younger rock.

@Speedyman

Well that's the closest you've come to a debate topic in a long time! Good for you!
Rather non-specific and displaying a superficial understanding, but good for you for trying kind of!

It sounds like what you're complaining about is geology which supports evolutionary timelines but is not itself part of evolution. I guess that's two scientific disciplines that are deliberately misrepresenting the facts. Starting to sound a little tinfoil hatty...
Aside from well understood geologic activity, there are other ways of verifying absolute and relative age of a rock layer which @Reflection2 has been kind enough to point out to you.

If you'd like to have a debate about the accuracy and authenticity of radiometric dating or geologic processes then let us begin.
Or perhaps you'd like something a little more accessible in which case we could talk about the evolution of birds and the fosil and genetic evidence which directly contradicts a literal interpretation of genesis.

[quote]Your problem is you don't really understand anything apart from certain things you have read on the Internet .[/quote]

Could NOT have put it better myself😉

The problem is that geology only supports certain evolutionary timelines and does not support others and the others which it does not support are conveniently forgotten. Your problem is the gullibility of people like you who swallow these things . Like the evolution of birds . Just look at the birds feathers and you will see an incredible design however they came to be . The problem with people like you if you put a paper bag over your head when it comes to knowledge@Pikachu

@Speedyman

[quote]The problem is that geology only supports certain evolutionary timelines and does not support others and the others which it does not support are conveniently forgotten.[/quote]

I'm not sure to what you're referring. Perhaps you could supply a reference.


[quote]Just look at the birds feathers and you will see an incredible design however they came to be[/quote]

That's not an argument, speedy.
It's a demand that i accept your faith claim.
But yes, let's DO talk about bird evolution.

Let's talk about how the fossil record shows that birds clearly descended from theropod dinosaurs which we can see by saurian and avian features intermingling and becoming more avian over time.
Let's talk about how dinosaur DNA is still present in modern birds and has been activated to make chicken embryos grow a lizard tail, teeth and a snout rather than a beak.
Let's talk about how some modern birds possess claws on their forelimbs exactly like those of theropod dinosaurs.
Let's talk about how we can see preserved in fossils how these "designed" feathers went from simple barbs, to symmetrical feathers to asymmetrical flight feathers.

Let's DO talk about the evolution of birds, speedy.
Or are you going to put a paper bag over your head when confronted with knowledge that challenges your preconceptions?😁

P.S. I am STILL waiting for you to actually answer the question posed in this thread. I don't think you're so stupid that you don't know the question is there so one wonders.. what are you afraid of?

I have read some pretty large articles on this subject and there are disputes even among evolutionist as to the question. Of course fundamentalists like you lap it up without] thought while there are even bogus museum pieces which frankly should not be there. What I am saying is that if you do not believe that the wing of the bird is designed for flight then you are a simpleton . I am talking about design here however that design was made. You do not honestly believe that such a thing was put together by blind forces do you or are you so blind yourself? So please answer my question - is a bird's designed by blind forces? Stop evading the question @Pikachu

@Speedyman

[quote]I have read some pretty large articles on this subject and there are disputes even among evolutionist as to the question.[/quote]

There are disputes that birds evolved from dinosaurs and in fact are technically still dinosaurs?
lol nope.
But i invite you to provide a reference for some of the pretty large articles you read about that.
And yes, i know you won't be doing that.

[quote] Stop evading the question [/quote]

lol bud.
You [i]just[/i] asked the question, how can i be avoiding it?
Yeah, the bird's wing evolved without a designer. Did you think i was going to deny that? The evolution of wings and feathers is pretty well studied.

[quote]What I am saying is that if you do not believe that the wing of the bird is designed for flight then you are a simpleton [/quote]

Exactly. That's all you're saying.
You're demanding that i accept your declaration of faith and calling me stupid if i don't.
I, on the other hand, offered you a number of evidence-based reasons why i believe my position to be correct which of course you are forced to ignore in order to maintain your erroneous world view.
Unlike you speedy, i am prepared to debate the evidence.
Speaks [i]volumes[/i] of the strength of your argument to me and literally every person who sees the way you comment and behave on posts like this.
That's a fact.


Oh and speaking of EVADING THE QUESTION, stop being being a coward and answer mine.
Or are you too afraid to be proven wrong and lose your excuse not to debate evidence? lol that's it, isn't it?

Now go ahead and and take a deep breath, put on your big boy pants and answer what [i]should[/i] be a simple question.

Explain why you feel so strongly that we must know how life began in order to study how it has evolved.
Don't puss out again, please and thanks😁

And yes, i know you're going to ignore this question again because you're dishonest aaaand you're about to prove it.

The fact you are using words like 'we know' just proves how simplistic your arguments are and how gullibly you accept them. You will cause her present yet you say you've given us evidence-based facts. But of course if you knew all the arguments you would realise that the arguments are far too complex to put down in a blog like this. I know because I have been reading them unlike you who have just swallowed some of the simplistic arguments from an Internet site . Or perhaps you have just seen the end of Jurassic Park and think that is fact. This has dedicated one way on the other in the scientific world for a long time and at the moment the consensus leads to wards birds coming from dinosaurs but of course it is by no means unanimous even among those who believe in evolution And as we have seen many times in scientific history particularly in the history of historical signs which is fiendishly difficult to unravel , the consensus can shift away from one thing to another. Nothing is proven and if you had any sense you would realise that. The very simplicity of your arguments in a highly complex subject means that you do not understand it@Pikachu

@Speedyman

[quote]The fact you are using words like 'we know' just proves how simplistic your arguments are and how gullibly you accept them[/quote]

*sigh*

No, speedy. It's just something one says when referring to the scientific consensus . Calm down.

Let's see what else we have here...

Blah blah blah ... excuses not to submit any evidence or make any argument or engage on any meaningful line of debate at all ... blah blah blah ... your reflexive compulsion to insult a person when you can't argue your case like an adult ... Oh, and i see that you STILL haven't answered the question i put to you in this thread.
Imagine my surprise😁

Do that now or excuse yourself.

I'm not insulting you at all. I'm just telling you that you are presenting no case whatsoever and that you do not know what you are talking about. It is you who are doing the blah blah blah and presenting your case like an infant. And imagine you haven't given one cohesive argument as to why you are correct . But then you were always full of hot air. The problem is that you are suffering from a case of what the psychologist called projection in that you project your own failings of somebody else. You are excusing yourself all the time so imagine my surprise . It really is quite pathetic but I expect nothing else from you on past forms. Anyway I'll disengage from you here on the grounds that Mark Twain said 'Do not argue with a fool. He will drag you down to his level and beat you by experience!' I'll now take his advice! Bye! 😄. @Pikachu