Is evolution a fact?

I'd like to bring forth an unforgiving point in the "evolutionist" backslash "evolutionist" viewpoint. I have never heard a solid argument against this.

Please do not say evolution is a fact, because it isn't. If you can prove to me 100% that evolution is indeed a fact, then please do.

So here's what it takes:

Please explain to me how living matter can arise through non-living matter. Please. So far no evolutionary theorists have ever given a mechanism for that to happen. Please provide a link.

Please explain how the Cambrian explosion could have occurred through what even Darwin called an anomaly, more or less.

According to the anthropic principle, life would not, nor could not, produce life forms as we know them, if the parameters of our universe were not so precisely "fine-tuned" to be able to create life. The anthropic principle, as it is now, undeniable. Life as we know it is due to an entirely incomprehensible set of laws. So please explain, through natural processes, why life is an inevitable probability.

I've heard many times from evolutionists how life is inevitable. More than that, I've actually heard from many evolutionary scientists, that the evolutionary theory, is in fact, a fact.
Please, please prove that. Because as far as I know, earth is the only planet you can use to back your theory up with.

So according to "fact" Life can arise from a non-living object into living matter. (Which has never, EVER been proven" mind you.) but still, I defy you to find me a scientific experiment where life can be created out of non-living matter.

Look, I'm not trying to prove what is or what was. All I'm asking is for you to provide an undeniable link as to what is declared as fact.

What is an evolutionary fact? I haven't seen one yet.

I don't believe which way or the other, but I do believe that if you call it a fact, then it should be a fact,

Look up Abiogenesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's how life evolves from non-life.

Some of the theories regarding the mechanism of it have been replicated in a laboratory too.

Originally posted by rockintitz
..
Please explain to me how living matter can arise through non-living matter. Please. So far no evolutionary theorists have ever given a mechanism for that to happen. Please provide a link.

Define living matter. Until we have a compromise what "living matter" is, we can't discuss (or better, I won't discuss, as the opponent might say "that was nice, but living matter has to have the following signs.. which your example didn't have.").
IF I define living matter as a composition of different basic ingredients, like amino acids, there were experiments which might provide insight how simple examples of those might have been created.
Obviously, we are not at the stage to (re-)animate dead matter. Yet.

Please explain how the Cambrian explosion could have occurred through what even Darwin called an anomaly, more or less.

IF there was a mass-extinction-event like a huge meteor impact, earth would have been devastated and all major life-forms would have been dead. Which would leave a lot of room for new animals and plants. Which could take a "leaping start", as most basic ingredients, like mentioned above, were present and therefore, life could start running. With lots of room and lots of different food, there was a wide range of possible life-forms with only a small amount of direct competition. Therefore "explosion" of life-forms. This is a theory. A very logical one.

According to the anthropic principle, life would not, nor could not, produce life forms as we know them, if the parameters of our universe were not so precisely "fine-tuned" to be able to create life. The anthropic principle, as it is now, undeniable. Life as we know it is due to an entirely incomprehensible set of laws. So please explain, through natural processes, why life is an inevitable probability.

IF we can't deny that those parameters are so very much fine-tuned, and we don't have evidence against that, we should be happy to live in this universe. What if there was another universe before this one where those parameters were badly tuned? Well, we wouldn't have lived and couldn't have complained about the bad situation, right?
Therefore, we live and as there is so much space in the universe (every day a new planet is detected), live is nearly inevitable. Statistics 101.
There is no need for a "fine-tuner" (aka god). We just were lucky. Maybe there were 10^80 universes before this one where live couldn't exist. We don't know.

I've heard many times from evolutionists how life is inevitable. More than that, I've actually heard from many evolutionary scientists, that the evolutionary theory, is in fact, a fact.
Please, please prove that. Because as far as I know, earth is the only planet you can use to back your theory up with.

One planet not enough? Oh come on.
Okay, facts are the backing of a theory. If you can provide facts backing your theory, you are in safe waters. If there were facts crossing your theory you would have to work on that theory. At the moment, there are no known facts which work against evolution. Therefore, the theory of evolution works.

Look, I'm not trying to prove what is or what was. All I'm asking is for you to provide an undeniable link as to what is declared as fact.

What is an evolutionary fact? I haven't seen one yet.

Could YOU define what an undeniable fact for evolution in the face of a creationist or whatever you would call yourself might be? I doubt that you could or would. Because that would leave your field of "believe", "faith" and so on and would make you attackable - maybe not today, but maybe in the future. And I have never seen a man of faith willing to tell me one verifiable point or provable myth.
Because deep down you don't want to know if there is any prove..

Evolutionists have a 'faith' in belief greater than that of any creationist. That is a fact.

Lets examine the structure of evolution. A fish eventually becomes a land animal as over millions of years it develops feet instead of fins and lungs instead of gills so it can survive on the land.

1. Why did it want to get out of the water in the first place?
2. Without legs and lungs it can’t walk or breathe so in trying to get out it dies. Billions and billions of fish later they develop legs. Hang on- evolution is in the breeding! So how does the dead fish pass on its discovery that it is dying and needs legs and the ability to breathe air to it’s offspring it will never have?
3. The argument is fish became amphibians
4. There is no geological record of evidence for the origin of fish. When they first appeared they were 100% fish.
5. There is geological record of amphibians in layers above fish. How did the parent come before the offspring?
6. Coelacanth were supposed to have evolved into amphibians millions of years ago. In 1938 they found them still alive in the Indian Ocean with absolutely no change. It is surely strange that the coelacanth could remain so stable all this time, both genetically and morphologically, while its cousin the rhipidistian was supposedly evolving the mind-boggling number of changes required to transform it eventually into a human.
7. If people don’t believe in a God, why do they come up with explanations for existence that are even more preposterous in the belief level. Evolution requires more faith and has less evidence than creation by a higher power.
8. From a creation point of view the coelacanth reproduced after it’s own kind and from a evolutionary point of view did so for a very very very long time.
9. Fossils themselves say evolution did not happen. The laws of evolution would mean that every stage of development would be in evidence. It isn’t. 1 does not mean 10 in a scale of obvious thought. To get to 10 you must first go from 1-9. Where is 1-9? We’ll they haven’t found them yet!

reply to post by rockintitz


It sounds like you're mixing abiogenesis with evolution. In science abiogensis is the study of the origin of life on Earth; evolution is how life adapts to survive. I have already started a thread about evolution and explained to the best of my ability why evolution is supported by science. Therefore it is consider a scientific theory. I can look up more about abiogenesis for you. But here is the link with all kinds of information already posted.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by MadMax7


7. If people don’t believe in a God, why do they come up with explanations for existence that are even more preposterous in the belief level. Evolution requires more faith and has less evidence than creation by a higher power.

That's a funny thing to say really. We have multiple branches of scientific endeavor all agreeing and supporting the theme of evolution, we have genetics, we have the fossil record, we have a veritable mountain of evidence that evolution is a process that has been and still is operating on this planet. Yet the fact that you find something beyond your comprehension "preposterous" is quite telling. The scientific process requires no faith. If you would care to provide "evidence" of a "creation by a higher power" feel free to do so.

We as humans have been engaged in a quest to understand life and its origins for hundreds of years, the story is incomplete but we learn more everyday. Your view point is about stunting and retarding(both in a contemporary and historical context) the natural curiosity that humans possess. Our will to find the truth will proceed, and whether your bible says a God made everything or not it will not stop that quest, unfortunately for you and your dogma.

The religiously minded will attack evolution for one simple reason, it contradicts a book, a book written, compiled, edited, printed and espoused by men, a long time ago in a land far away from where you are today.....that's preposterous.

Evolution can be proven today when we look at how they breed dogs for specific varieties. When you see the difference in a few generations, which would be a couple of decades for something like a dog, you can realize what a couple of billion years can produce. There is big jumps between single celled to fish to land creatures, but we only have fossils of about 2% of the species ever been on Earth so we can't really say what there was back then. Evolution isn't the creation of life, it's the continuation of life once it has emerged. The right environment and chemistry is the creation of life then evolution kicks in.

Originally posted by cointree77
Evolution can be proven today when we look at how they breed dogs for specific varieties. When you see the difference in a few generations, which would be a couple of decades for something like a dog, you can realize what a couple of billion years can produce. There is big jumps between single celled to fish to land creatures, but we only have fossils of about 2% of the species ever been on Earth so we can't really say what there was back then. Evolution isn't the creation of life, it's the continuation of life once it has emerged. The right environment and chemistry is the creation of life then evolution kicks in.

I have never seen a dog breed anything but another dog.
Your assumption is flawed

reply to post by borntowatch


No, your assumption is flawed.

Believing that evolution says that one animal changes into another is a typical creationist error.

Evolution is about diversification, hence the dog analogy. With time species adapt and diversify, eventually those adaptations become characteristic of a particular species, thus singling them as unique.

The zebra is a good example, clearly a member of the horse family, but why the stripes? Have a think about it.

Originally posted by Painterz
Look up Abiogenesis.

en.wikipedia.org...

That's how life evolves from non-life.

Some of the theories regarding the mechanism of it have been replicated in a laboratory too.

Sorry, but this deosn't explain anything, Does it ?

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by borntowatch

 

No, your assumption is flawed.

Believing that evolution says that one animal changes into another is a typical creationist error.

Evolution is about diversification, hence the dog analogy. With time species adapt and diversify, eventually those adaptations become characteristic of a particular species, thus singling them as unique.

The zebra is a good example, clearly a member of the horse family, but why the stripes? Have a think about it.

Evolution states animals evolve (change) into more complex animals. Are you saying it doesnt

A striped horse is a horse, not a moo cow, not a monkey or a fish....flawed.
Clearly a member of the horse family, not a new species
Micro evolution is not macro evolution. You work it out
This is a pointless argument, evolution is a faith, you believe it.
I choose my faith.Good onya, believe what you want

Originally posted by borntowatch

Originally posted by seabhac-rua
reply to post by borntowatch

 

No, your assumption is flawed.

Believing that evolution says that one animal changes into another is a typical creationist error.

Evolution is about diversification, hence the dog analogy. With time species adapt and diversify, eventually those adaptations become characteristic of a particular species, thus singling them as unique.

The zebra is a good example, clearly a member of the horse family, but why the stripes? Have a think about it.

Evolution states animals evolve (change) into more complex animals. Are you saying it doesnt

A striped horse is a horse, not a moo cow, not a monkey or a fish....flawed.
Clearly a member of the horse family, not a new species
Micro evolution is not macro evolution. You work it out
This is a pointless argument, evolution is a faith, you believe it.
I choose my faith.Good onya, believe what you want

They evolve to suit their surroundings. Please do more research into things so as not to look foolish.

People change shape within a couple generations because of their genetics. The theory is just a theory and cannot be turned into fact unless you change the definition of a fact. The theory is full of possible flaws, like the possibility of rapid evolution within a couple generations because of certain situations. The theory was written before the rest of the genome was acknowledged as important, the junk DNA separates us from apes more than anything else.

Nobody can convince me that this theory of evolution is a fact. Sorry I can't help you with the evidence you need. I don't believe creationism is real as stated by most people either. I believe that the structured energy of the universe created everything as it interacted with the elements, that structured energy is god. Chaos could be considered the devil I supposed if you believe we came from chaos.

Until I see a fricken ape walk out of the congo with a cigar in his mouth, talking cantonees or whatever native language is around. I'm going with a big fat, NO it's not fact.

The theory behind evolution is one thing but hardly close to hiting the nail on the coffin.

reply to post by DPrice


DPrice your comment is that of a child burning his/her hand on a griddle and remembering not to do that next time.

Originally posted by sulaw
Until I see a fricken ape walk out of the congo with a cigar in his mouth, talking cantonees or whatever native language is around. I'm going with a big fat, NO it's not fact.

The theory behind evolution is one thing but hardly close to hiting the nail on the coffin.

Yes they speak Cantonese in the congo

reply to post by DPrice


LOL Or whatever have you. Clearly stated

Inanimate matter cannot 'self-replicate' - copying something requires awareness. Everything ultimately must be described with nothing more than the fundamental forces of physics and these forces simply cannot interact to produce the purpose and awareness that can be witnessed inside the biological cell. The mind / free-will cannot arise from these forces either - no matter how long it takes.

Biological systems are more than just highly ordered structures; they are more than just functioning machines; they are systems capable of reproduction and self-maintenance that continually operate against the universes progress towards thermal equilibrium.

The DNA molecule cannot replicate itself. The requisite chaos of life that leads to endless mutation isn't happening. Nothing builds itself. Evolution and abiogenesis are lies intended to deny you your mystical nature.

The rulers of this world were here before all the more traditional religions, and well before the atheist priesthood of the western universities. Atheists seem to believe that 'everything came from nothing and built itself' is a scientifically legitimate belief - it's not.

Once upon a time we were controlled by religions that closed our minds to the living experience of God by replacing it with symbols and ceremony, now we have had our minds closed even further by smooth-talkers, 'intellectuals' and 'experts' that make huge claims of proof through hidden scientism.

How many have had evolution proven to them? Ask yourself what the potential benefits and detriments of believing in such unproven claims.

Enlightenment will not be dispensed by professor nor priest - it is a personal endeavour.

Fundamental forces, thermo-dynamics, quantum theory, probability, symmetry - play around yourself! Be not subservient to the pseudo-scientists that come with their prepared speeches intending to overwhelm you with terminology your not familiar with. Endless dogma and supposed verisimilitude; curt and derisive responses, will all become transparent.

The natural phenomenon we call evolution is a fact. The theory attempts to explain it. I'll paste this here too:




OP could probably read this too. I've had it on my hdd for a while but still haven't found the time to actually read it.

reply to post by Robert Reynolds


You could have just said no.