To the question of where did all life on Earth come from, is there isn't a satifactory answer.
The evolution theory has large holes in the evidence, as has already been expressed.
If all things evolve why are there still simple organisms?
Religions rely on blind faith, you believe or you dont believe the doctrine. I stopped believing in fairy tales long ago, even though most sell an attactive product.

Do you think this is a question where evolutionary scientists don't have an answer or do you actually want to dispute what evolutionary science has to say about it?

I already expressed my critique.. it has gaps which make it faith-like.. go ahead and believe what you want

I’ve researched the topic extensively and think it’s a massive cover up and sham and people are realizing it every day.

We didn’t evolve from apes and that is what evolution is trying to sell.

This is such a blah response… so we will see adaptation but we won’t ever see evolution… got it

Agree on evolution…

As far as religion goes it’s man made and thus can’t be trusted even the Bible says don’t trust priests or anyone trying to interpret for you, you have to go to the source.

As far as God goes it’s a mystery… nobody knows what happens after you die or where you came from. We only know life.

I’m fine with saying we just don’t know. I just think it’s absurd to have evolution try to provide all the answers all the while having massive gaps and not really providing actual proof but theories and outright lies.

All science is up for debate or at least new findings

[QUOTE=Bohemianwrapsody;57272059]This is such a blah response… so we will see adaptation but we won’t ever see evolution… got it[/QUOTE

Sorry that reality doesn’t conform to your opinion of what it should be. What exact is the difference between adaptation and evolution? I think you are trying to make a distinction that does not exist in reality.

Consider a simple analogy. Suppose you knew nothing about light or color. You have a device that will accurately record the color of any light shining upon it so you can look at it later. You have a light source that is monochromatic and can be tuned to produce a given wavelength of light to a precision of one nanometer.

Given this, let’s perform an experiment. Start by tuning your source to a wavelength of 520 nm. This will produce light with a green color. Record this color and then record successive colors by reducing the wavelength 1 nm increments until you reach 430 nm. Your color will gradually change from green to blue and end up purple. Repeat, but this time increase the wavelength in 1nm increments until you reach 610 nm. The color will change from green to yellow to orange.

Now keep in mind you don’t know how color works; I show you only the endpoints of these two experiments, the purple and orange. You rightly say that they appear every different, but I claim they both arose from a “common ancestral color” that you haven’t seen. I’m obviously right, but I’m going to have real difficulties convincing you that what appears so different is actually related.

Now I pull out some of my intermediate colors, but many of them got lost. I have a few greenish blues, a few blue-violets, a few greenish yellows, and maybe an orange/yellow. You claim that these are just “adaptations” and “gaps” still exist in my color sequence.

Evolution works in analogous fashion to my hypothetical experiment. Modern species result from divergence from isolated sub populations of ancestral species, much as purple and orange result from green. In a complete fossil record, only minor changes are seen, just as in a complete record above, successive colors with a 1 nm wavelength difference would appear similar. The fossil record is incomplete, though, so what we actually see arw clusters of aimilar fossils seemingly different from other clusters, much like the blue-violet and yellow-greens in my analogy.

[QUOTE=stremba70;57272278] Cool story bro..

Now show me some actual proof that we came from monkeys

[QUOTE=Bohemianwrapsody;57272304] You’re missing my point. The evidence is out there. You are so busy avoiding looking at it and knocking down straw men that it isn’t worth addressing your requests for evidence since what you’re looking for isn’t even what evolution actually predicts.

You can say “no transitional fossils!” or “gaps in the fossil record!” all you want. That doesn’t make it true. You’re looking for a monkey giving birth to a human; that’s not what evolution predicts. (Leaving aside the fact that humans are closely related to apes, not monkeys). It predicts that modern humans came from an ancestral species that was very human like, but with some ape-like features. That species arose from another very similar, but slightly more ape-like one, and so on. That’s exactly what the fossil record shows — a whole line of species with both ape like and human features, some leaning more toward human , some more toward ape. There’s no “missing link” because that idea is a conceptual error.

All this assumes that fossils are the only evidence. There’s actually plenty of evidence from biochemistry, microbiology and comparative anatomy for you to ignore. There isn’t proof in the deductive, mathematical sense. Science doesn’t do such proof. Multiple, independent lines of evidence lead not only to the idea of common ancestry, but to the EXACT same evolutionary relationships between modern organisms. That’s plenty good enough for acceptance of a scientific theory. I suspect conflict with your religious beliefs, not lack of evidence, is your main issue with evolution

[QUOTE=stremba70;57272642] Lol assuming I must be religious if I don’t believe in evolution…

I don’t practice man made religion so what’s your point exactly? I do believe in a higher power and UNMOVED MOVER though as there has to be some force that put everything here. I refuse to believe we just got here and came to existence out of nothing. It’s a false paradigm anyway to argue evolution vs creation.

I’m coming from a purely science angle at this.. there should be loads of evidence and when you dig deep there’s almost none. My contention is with both science and religion being faith based. Science is supposed to say we don’t know not come up with theories and pass it off as fact.

[QUOTE=Bohemianwrapsody;57272710] What would qualify as “evidence” in your mind? Specifically what are you looking for? You may not belong to any human religion, but your post indicates that you have religious beliefs. Again conflict with those beliefs seems to be the real issue.

BTW, what evidence do you have for your beliefs? “I can’t believe we came from nothing” is not evidence; it’s argument from incredulity. Even if it’s conclusively shown that evolution is false, that doesn’t make your beliefs true. You still have to provide evidence.

[QUOTE=stremba70;57272744] My point is that if both things are faith based I’d rather trust the one admitting to being that..

You are right in your contention for wanting more proof.. I think it’s fare to want more proof on both sides. But I also think it’s a false paradigm and maybe the answer is we don’t know.

I’ll just say that I think the proof and evidence is strongest when science and Spirituality work together.

I'm not certain of the origin of this joke but it goes something like this:

In the examination of the transitional fossil record, critics point to a "gap" where the features of one fossil and its immediate predecessor appear dramatically different in both structure and time.

Acknowledging this "gap", paleontologists dig some more and after much hard work find a fossil that fits nicely in the middle of the "gap".

Critics take a look at the new situation and say: "Ah! Look! The situation is even worse! Now there are TWO gaps!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tional_fossils

BTW, here's a great book: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B002RI9392...ng=UTF8&btkr=1

Lol your inner fish.. that should be a best seller on a poker forum

Well, my point is that you haven't really expressed a critique to me. You've asked some questions which you should know the answer to before you criticise the theory.

And when I ask you what exactly the critique is you give me an evasive answer like this.

Of course it is. I didn't ask you about whether science was up for debate. It all is.

To rephrase it, what I asked was whether your critique is "My questions haven't been answered" OR is it "The answers are flawed"?

Because if it's the former then you haven't even begun to learn about evolution. If it's the latter then instead of asking questions already answered you should be posting a rebuttal.

"All science is up for debate" doesn't get me any closer to knowing your position and it isn't debating evolution.

I also find it strange for someone to say more people are realising it's a sham every day. I haven't looked for stats but it's quite a niche view to deny evolution. It's only because it's rife in America that people like me even talk about it. Here in the UK I think I've met exactly two people in my life that doubt the theory.

[QUOTE=Bohemianwrapsody;57272797] Before you claim evolution to be faith based, specifically what evidence do you think is missing? Specifically what would you expect to see if evolution is true that isn’t seen? If you answer that, then several options exist:

1 The evidence you are looking for isn’t really missing; you are just unaware of it. There’s no shame in this. There’s a ton of scientific findings that go largely unreported and are of interest only to specialists in the field. If you share what you’re looking for, perhaps someone can guide you to it.

2. The evidence you seek is not really something that is expected to be observed if evolution is true. A good example is the “missing link”, understood to be a single fossil find that definitively links human and apes. There won’t be such a thing found.because such a thing doesn’t exist and should not exist if evolution is true. There should just be a whole bunch of fossils found that have a blend of human and ape like features, some leaning more toward human like, some shading more toward ape like. That’s exactly what the fossil record shows.

3. You have actually found a real gap in the supporting evidence for evolution. Given that many scientists have devoted their careers to studying evolution and looking for evidence for it, this seems unlikely, but it’s possible. One gap, though. doesn’t destroy the theory. There are still multiple independent lines of evidence that support evolution.

You say you want proof, but science can’t give you proof. Science can only look at some part of the universe and come up with explanations for why that part of the universe is the way it is. Good explanations though lead to predictions of what you will find if you look for other evidence. As a general prediction, for instance, evolution predicts that 100 million year old fossils will not resemble modern mammals. A more specific prediction is that we will find fossils with blends of bird and reptilian features, ones with mammalian and reptilian features, but never ones with blends of bird and mammalian features. An even more specific one is that we will find the same viral DNA insertions in the genomes of gorillas, chimps and humans. We will find other such insertions shared in the genomes of humans and chimps. We will find no such insertions shared by gorillas and chimps, but lacking in humans. Nor will we find ones shared by humans and gorillas but not found in chimps.

All of these predictions have to date been borne out by observation. There are many more. Any alternative explanation has to deal with these observations as a starting point. It has to make other predictions, things that would not be predicted by evolution, that can be checked and verified. Until such an alternative is presented and shown to explain observations better than evolution, evolution will continue to be the scientific consensus theory of how biodiversity developed.

[QUOTE=stremba70;57273575] Well written!

My position is that it’s unknown. But why does evolution and mainstream science have to act like they have all the answers. I would have more respect for science if they said they just “don’t know”.. but instead they hypothesize and it’s irritating for anyone w half a brain that knows that’s something up when people push “science” so hard… you just need to “research” more bruh

No reputable scientist would ever say they have "all the answers". Scientists say they "don't know" all the time.There are an infinite number of things science does not yet know.

However, there are things that science does know (at least with a high degree of certainty) but even these very well understood things can be proven wrong if enough objective and verifiable evidence is presented. For example, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would present a significant problem for evolution.

But given that the evidence for evolution is staggeringly strong and has been building for 150 years, the evidence against it would have to be similarly powerful. (“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”).

Imagine a town with the Smith family and the Jones family, amongst others (who have not intermarried for the sakeof the example).

You are asking the equivalent of why are there no half Smith / half Jones (and everywhere in between) within one or other family tree.

Smith's first descendant is Smith Jr.
Smith Jr. is still a Smith, but Smith is not a Smith Jr.
Smith Jr.'s first descendant will be a Smith Jr. Jr.
Smith Jr. Jr. is still a Smith Jr.
Smith Jr. Jr. is also still a Smith.
But neither Smith nor Smith Jr. are Smith Jr. Jr.'s.
And so on.
At no point would we expect one of Smith's descendants to produce a Jones anywhere in their family tree.

Do you disagree with any of this?
Can you see how it relates to species instead of family trees?

Wolves are canines. Dogs are Wolf Jr.'s and so also canines. We expect every descendant of wolves (and hence of dogs) to be canine - including any future sub-species of dogs.

Abiogenesis refers to biological life. Unless you consider god to be a biological life, then you are obviously conflating terms.

Further, abiogenesis would become impossible for scientists to demonstrate, even if they actually created biological life from non-life (whatever that would look like), because the scientists are alive.



As Bladesmen pointed out, the issue is whether it is a painting to begin with. When you discover that what you "knew for certain" was a painting and therefore had a painter is indistinguishable from a piece that was the result of paint cans falling to the ground (during an earthquake for example), where does that leave you?

Lot of walls of texts..

Ok so if all life came from the water then answer this:

At what point could that animal get out of the water and survive. Did it happen in a single lifespan or did it happen from generation to generation? When does the change take place allowing something to breath under water and now breath on land?

Also why would we adapt or evolve to no longer be able to breath under water?

This to me is going backwards

I agree, the evolution argument is not convincing enough , it does make some sense but not enough so you can state it as a fact.

If you look at the scientific discoveries of the universe they are so out there that you can believe anything is possible. We really dont have a clue what's going on!

If there is a controlling power, call it god if you like, its energy, its as close as I can get to believing in a god.
The only everlasting life I'm expecting is when I'm recycled just like everyone else.

So, with respect, this is repeating your position but it isn't answering the question I gave you.

I'm not asking you if you believe in evolution. I'm not asking you what you do or don't respect. I'm not asking you to repeat yourself.

Repeating that you don't believe in evolution isn't helping me and it isn't going to progress the conversation. What will help me is you answering the above.