Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Well?
I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?
Mutations occur all of the time. Most are benign and do nothing. Every now and then the mutation kills the critter, and even more rarely the mutation does nothing until some outside event comes along that makes that mutation important. The other critters vying for that particular niche die out because they lack that particular mutation, while the mutated critter takes over the niche. That is how evolution works.
Why would a viable critter die out just because a new model developed?
In order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth AnythingIt was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.
The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved. They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
What science is being denied?
That's hard to say. Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
Basic facts like when a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species.
The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. Geographic isolation seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
2 When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
I think your terminology may be confusing you. In any case...how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life
LOL
What a joke
The odds of the little molecules randomly bumping together to form a single cell are mathematically impossible. A simple single cell contains 2,000 separate proteins. The odds of 2,000 proteins, which are themselves complex, forming a functioning cell is a number with 5,700 zeros to 1.
Impossible. Didn't happen
The video goes on to say that single cells banded together to avoid predators, don't laugh, and one day they decided to stick together forming a multi celled badass
Wow
Not everyone... Only those who didn't take 9th grade biology, or didn't pay attention when they did....Everyone wonders how new species come about,
Easy! Because that "new model" takes over the "viable critter's" niche, or because the new model was a new adaptation to the "viable critter's" food, robbing it of its food source. Or maybe the "new model" is a pathogen that decimates the population of the "viable critter". There are plenty of reasons you can come up with.Why would a viable critter die out just because a new model developed
I think your terminology may be confusing you. In any case...how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?
How and why single cell organisms evolved into multicellular life
LOL
What a joke
The odds of the little molecules randomly bumping together to form a single cell are mathematically impossible. A simple single cell contains 2,000 separate proteins. The odds of 2,000 proteins, which are themselves complex, forming a functioning cell is a number with 5,700 zeros to 1.
Impossible. Didn't happen
The video goes on to say that single cells banded together to avoid predators, don't laugh, and one day they decided to stick together forming a multi celled badass
Wow
I don’t accept it as 100%. But I’ve seen enough science to conclude my hypothesis. And it has been duplicated in a lab. Now wait 2 million years to see what happens. You just proved you don’t really understand the science because you can’t replicate something that takes millions of years although we’ve done a hell of a job with dogsIn order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.Pay Them to Study, or They Won't Be Worth Anything
The intelligence of know-it-all bookworms has not improved. They seem to be smarter only because their equally inadequate predecessors were exposed by outcomes.
And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
What science is being denied?
That's hard to say. Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
Basic facts like when a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species.
The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. Geographic isolation seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
2 When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
Everyone wonders how new species come about, much like everyone wonders how the first cell formed or where matter comes from.
The bottom line, however, is that It is all pure speculation based upon the best educated guess.
None of this has been observed nor duplicated yet it does not give you pause in accepting it as 100% truth.
Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
Your side tells us all the facts are in your holy books. Do you buy that?
If you don't believe our impossible, failed theory...if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
Educate yourselfI don’t accept it as 100%. But I’ve seen enough science to conclude my hypothesis. And it has been duplicated in a lab. Now wait 2 million years to see what happens. You just proved you don’t really understand the science because you can’t replicate something that takes millions of years although we’ve done a hell of a job with dogsIn order to discuss this you’re going to have to stop denying the science.
And the for profit community won’t do the science because there’s no money in r&d. That’s business flaw
What science is being denied?
That's hard to say. Whatever science contradicts your religion I suppose.
Basic facts like when a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species.
The theory of evolution says that species change over time. Did you ever wonder how new species evolve? Natural selection seems to explain how variations can lead to changes in a species. Geographic isolation seems to be one of the main ways this happens. This geographic separation from others of their species seems to be what made different species evolve on the Galapagos Islands. The six-hundred-mile separation of the islands from the mainland may have led to those animals evolving into new species. After many changes evolve in a group of animals, individuals of that group can no longer mate with the rest of the species that remain unchanged. That is the definition of species: individuals that are able to breed among themselves but are not able to breed with other species.
2 When a group of individuals is separated from the rest of their species for a long time, the individuals can evolve different traits. The longer the group is isolated from the rest of the species, the more likely it will evolve into a new species. One example of this has been seen in fish species in the lakes of Switzerland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia. Almost every lake has different forms, believed to have evolved from one species.
Everyone wonders how new species come about, much like everyone wonders how the first cell formed or where matter comes from.
The bottom line, however, is that It is all pure speculation based upon the best educated guess.
None of this has been observed nor duplicated yet it does not give you pause in accepting it as 100% truth.
Very odd in science because good science demands the scientific method of testing and observation.
Your side tells us all the facts are in your holy books. Do you buy that?
What science have you conducted or observed to make you form your hypothesis?
if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
no I'm not wrongif you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
you are saying what I am saying!!!!!!!!!!hahahah WTF??On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials
I suggest you never mention Darwin or evolution again, because your comments show that you know less than nothing about either.Power Doesn't Give Authority
The mind masters force on us a choice between only between Darwin's chaos-with-a-goal and Creationism. Students and their gurus defend Darwinism desperately because they feel that if he is rejected, theology will replace science.
so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
is this what you saying???
2 points.so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
is this what you saying???
If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.
Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."
The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
is this what you saying???
If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.
Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."
The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
Harmonica, you need to understand something:if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed man just ''appears'' from nothing...yes or no??so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??if you don't believe in evolution, then you must believe 2 humans just ''appeared'' like Star Trek energizing......much more unbelievable than evolution
what's more believable/chance of happening:
a single cell evolving/''appearing'' or millions of single cells arranged into a complicated being just ''appearing''? ''Energize''
View attachment 183169
That's a horrible analogy. Even biology isn't like the Star Trek transporter at all, so you're wrong. The biology states that living organisms were formed from the tree of life. All living organisms have a history, changed over time and different species share common ancestors. There is no need for creation because it is assumed that some bacteria or single-cell organism appeared billions of years ago due to some energy transformation.
On the creation science side, humans were created from God as adult creatures. All living organisms were created that way except for Baby Jesus. Creation scientists say that it is impossible for a single-cell organism to form from non-living materials. This is because the building block of protein can only be created within another living cell and the right amino acids are needed. The formation of protein doesn't happen in nature or outer space. Else we would see the origins of biological evolution happen and one does not need millions of years to do so.
Which is more believable based on the evidence? It's the creation theory since the building block of protein can only occur within a cell. If the evolution origins theory were true, then we would see more living organisms such as microbes or bacteria in other parts of our solar system.
is this what you saying???
If a cell cannot be created, just like an atom can't be created , then you have to look at what other theories of origins are out there. (BTW molecules can be put together to create something, but not atoms. We can create synthetic diamonds, but not gold. This is as God designed. He put limitations. A man's got to know his limitations as Dirty Harry said.) If it's not based on evolutionary thinking, then it's creation. The arguments have come down to basically these two. Actually, there is a third option where one can choose to ignore the fine tuning facts or laws, as it only applied during expansion, but then they would run into other problems such as fine tuning in biology down the road. Read the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy link below.
Here is evidence of what I am talking about. We have sent probes to every planet and now have boiled it down to two in regards to possibility of life bearing and being able to support life if we choose to colonize there. One is Mars which has been studied in-depth and not one microbe has been found. The remaining planet is Europa which is a moon of Jupiter and not a planet. Mars is still highly questionable in regards to supporting life because not enough water has been found. What's there is frozen and scientists think there was water there in the past. That said, if there was water there in the past, then we would find some evidence of past life. Europa still has a chance because studies have shown vast oceans of water within the planet.
What is happening today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper before he died which I will relate to fine tuning below. I mention him because he is the person whom I read to learn of the Big Bang Theory. When these atheist scientists were investigating what happened immediately after the expansion, i.e. big bang, they discovered fine tuning parameters that if they were minutely off, then the universe would have collapsed onto itself. If the speed of expansion was too fast, then gravity would not have been able to pull the planets, moons and stars together . Look up John Leslie and fine tuning for an evolutionist view of fine tuning. There are too many parameters to discuss in this short space, so I post links to two web pages, one creation science and the other neutral philosophy that give detailed explanation. The creation science link discusses the parameters and shows how great the chances are of life happening as the universe and earth formed. This is why Stephen Hawking asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?" The other link discusses the competing theories. One even asks if a response is necessary. It seems to state, "It is what it is."
The Universe: Evidence for Its Fine Tuning
Fine-Tuning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
What we learn today is Stephen Hawking wrote a paper two weeks before he died. In it he discusses why there are multiverses. It's tries to explain how multiverses could form as other scientists have done like Guth, Linde, Weinberg and others. Why multiverses are important is because it is atheist science's or evolutionary thinking's hypothesis to counter the fine tuning of an intelligent designer and support the anthropic principle. One name for it is the eternal chaotic inflation hypothesis. Creation science thinks fine tuning is evidence for God and creation.
Article and link to his paper from Cornell is within.
Read Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes, Submitted Just Two Weeks Before He Died
Confronting the Multiverse: What 'Infinite Universes' Would Mean
