Is natural selection the solution to evolution?

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The idea that humans evolved from monkeys to humans falls on it’s face when these very same monkeys are still swinging from the trees today.

Wrong.

A childish error that only someone who knows next to nothing about evolution would make.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some apes never evolved into humans. That's why we still have Democrats.

(Humans are apes)

 

[watchingfromafar]

Wrong.

A childish error that only someone who knows next to nothing about evolution would make.

I am compelled to tell you that your answer fell a bit short. So unrelated to the subject that it does not even belong here. Your response was, nada, zip.

Saying “Wrong” is a glass half empty, no.,,,..,., empty.

Please try again

-

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I am compelled to tell you that your answer fell a bit short.

So what? You know less than nothing about evolution. Your opinion of it or of my grasp of it also means less than nothing.

But I promise you that you are embarrassing yourself and making very ignorant,childish errors.

 

[watchingfromafar]

So what? You know less than nothing about evolution. Your opinion of it or of my grasp of it also means less than nothing.

But I promise you that you are embarrassing yourself and making very ignorant,childish errors.

Please, please, address the topic
-

 

[watchingfromafar]

my grasp of it also means less than nothing.

Finally we both have something we can agree on.
-

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Please, please, address the topic
-

I did. Your error was childish and ignorant and shows you know less than nothing about evolution.

it's something a child might say, after hearing the general principle of evolution. It is an error that middle school science teachers find themselves correcting on day one of the lesson.

If I thought you had any honest interest in knowing why you are so wrong, I would explain.

but we both know that you do not, and that you will repeat this idiotic and wrong talking point no matter what I say.

 

[james bond]

Human fossil bones, teeth, or artifacts (that would be something) or just impressions in what was mud that may look like footprints (much less convincing)?

Ichnology is part of paleontology, but the footprints and dino prints have to pass keen scrutiny. Yes, there are footprints of humans and dinosaurs, but many aren't taken seriously.

Here's an article from a Christian website -- Human and dinosaur fossil footprints? - creation.com.

Are there any from evolutionist websites even though it would hurt evolution?

 

[james bond]

All you had to do was read the thread at the top of the page you Sci illiterate.
The few credible 'definition' links you used lend ZERO credibility to your Wack Job/Low IQ conclusions.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[........]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.

The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, “If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?” New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.

7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on Earth.

The origin of life remains very much a mystery, but biochemists have learned about how primitive nucleic acids, amino acids and other building blocks of life could have formed and organized themselves into self-replicating, self-sustaining units, laying the foundation for cellular biochemistry. Astrochemical analyses hint that quantities of these compounds might have originated in space and fallen to Earth in comets, a scenario that may solve the problem of how those constituents arose under the conditions that prevailed when our planet was young.

Creationists sometimes try to invalidate all of evolution by pointing to science's current inability to explain the origin of life. But even if life on Earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin (for instance, if aliens introduced the first cells billions of years ago), evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies."...
[......]

`

Rennie's article is flawed and shows the problem with science today is that it's only validated by fellow atheist scientists. Scientific American is one of the most hateful and prejudiced atheist publications and fools the simple minded atheists who subscribe to such biased nonsense.

The Bible tells us how origins happened and gives us a history of real people who lived during the times. Rennie has no answer for that. Anyway, if you admit that there is no evidence of monkeys to humans and birds from dinosaurs (disproved), then I have no problem with what you believe. It's like Rennie can believe what he wants, but it won't be the majority ever.

 

[Quasar44]

watchingfromafar

Evolution is only a by product of drastic changes in a species environment

 

[Quasar44]

Environment survival can lead to the rise of odd mutations and new life

 

[abu afak]

Still waiting.
Every dope likes chatting with Fort Fun Indiana.. but can never answer me.

watchingfromafar said:
If I have upset you, please forgive me.

I believe you are and that is why I posted this topic here. I was hoping to get comments on the substance of my post.
We started with a molten ball of rock and now we have billions of loving things. I am disputing evolution as the reason.
-
Click to expand...

Abiogenesis, the first spark/Life is not really part of evolution.
No matter how it happened, evolution is demonstrably true by every relevant science to the topic.

Space Alien seeding you mentioned is another idiotic POS since that really just "kicks the life problem down the galaxy."

And yes, in earth's case, and in 4.5 Billion years of wildly varying conditions, including being bombarded by Billions of objects, including Water Filled Comets, I do believe it's certainly possible these many elements broke down and combined into a soup that was more conducive to life, not just from "a molten rock."
You are an ignorant and disingenuous simpleton neglecting the fact that it took 3 Billion of that 4.5 Billion years just to get 'more livable'/conducive.

You are really beneath discussion and I suggest you google 'Argument from Ignorance' or 'Argument from Incredulity' because they are about the two biggest (of a dozen) of your fallacies.

`

 

[alang1216]

Ichnology is part of paleontology, but the footprints and dino prints have to pass keen scrutiny. Yes, there are footprints of humans and dinosaurs, but many aren't taken seriously.

Here's an article from a Christian website -- Human and dinosaur fossil footprints? - creation.com.

Are there any from evolutionist websites even though it would hurt evolution?

Even the creationist author of your article was not convinced he had found human footprints, why would any else even consider them as human-dino examples?

 

[Hollie]

Is natural selection the solution to evolution?

I have been doing a review on how we and all the other creatures on this planet evolved and I have come to a surprising conclusion.

The current accepted theory is natural selection. The originator of this theory was Charles Darwine.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) are jointly credited with coming up with the theory of evolution by natural selection, having co-published on it in 1858. Darwin has generally overshadowed Wallace since the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, however.

Natural selection is a mechanism of evolution. Organisms that are more adapted to their environment are more likely to survive and pass on the genes that aided their success. This process causes species to change and diverge over time.
What is natural selection?

natural selection, process that results in the adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype, or genetic constitution.
natural selection | Definition & Processes

This theory is simple and easy to accept and even taught in our public schools and yet I believe it is flawed.
View attachment 594309

The idea that humans evolved from monkeys to humans falls on it’s face when these very same monkeys are still swinging from the trees today. The only way to accept this theory is to believe a mutation occurred and this mutation evolved into the humans of today. To accept this defies the idea of “natural selection”.

Setting aside natural selection and looking for alternatives I looked at the basic building blocks of all living things on this planet, DNA.

What is DNA?
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA. Most DNA is located in the cell nucleus (where it is called nuclear DNA), but a small amount of DNA can also be found in the mitochondria (where it is called mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA). Mitochondria are structures within cells that convert the energy from food into a form that cells can use.

The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

DNA bases pair up with each other, A with T and C with G, to form units called base pairs. Each base is also attached to a sugar molecule and a phosphate molecule. Together, a base, sugar, and phosphate are called a nucleotide. Nucleotides are arranged in two long strands that form a spiral called a double helix. The structure of the double helix is somewhat like a ladder, with the base pairs forming the ladder’s rungs and the sugar and phosphate molecules forming the vertical sidepieces of the ladder.

An important property of DNA is that it can replicate, or make copies of itself. Each strand of DNA in the double helix can serve as a pattern for duplicating the sequence of bases. This is critical when cells divide because each new cell needs to have an exact copy of the DNA present in the old cell.

View attachment 594308

To understand the above I had to accept the idea that such a structure developed from a planet that was nothing more that a large ball of molten rock that cooled down leaving a thin shell that is referred to as earth’s crust. From this crust DNA evolved. I find this hard to believe. Making it even harder to believe is the fact that DNA is just a small component from a much more complex structure called chromosomes.

A chromosome is a DNA molecule packaged into thread-like structures. Each chromosome is made up of DNA tightly coiled many times around proteins called histones that support its structure.

Chromosomes are not visible in the cell’s nucleus—not even under a microscope—when the cell is not dividing. However, the DNA that makes up chromosomes becomes more tightly packed during cell division and is then visible under a microscope. Most of what researchers know about chromosomes was learned by observing chromosomes during cell division.

Each chromosome has a constriction point called the centromere, which divides the chromosome into two sections, or “arms.” The short arm of the chromosome is labeled the “p arm.” The long arm of the chromosome is labeled the “q arm.” The location of the centromere on each chromosome gives the chromosome its characteristic shape, and can be used to help describe the location of specific genes.
What is a chromosome?: MedlinePlus Genetics

View attachment 594311



How can a structure as complex as a chromosome come from the earths crust? This question puzzled me until I looked a little further. The above structure did not come about by natural selection but rather purposefully selection. Humans are doing this today, calling it cloning.

Cloning is a technique scientists use to make exact genetic copies of living things. Genes, cells, tissues, and even whole animals can all be cloned. ... In humans, identical twins are similar to clones. They share almost the exact same genes. Identical twins are created when a fertilized egg splits in two.

Scientists also make clones in the lab. They often clone genes in order to study and better understand them. To clone a gene, researchers take DNA from a living creature and insert it into a carrier like bacteria or yeast. Every time that carrier reproduces, a new copy of the gene is made.

Animals are cloned in one of two ways. The first is alled embryo twinning. Scientists first split an embryo in half. Those two halves are then placed in a mother’s uterus. Each part of the embryo develops into a unique animal, and the two animals share the same genes. The second method is called somatic cell nuclear transfer. Somatic cells are all the cells that make up an organism, but that are not sperm or egg cells. Sperm and egg cells contain only one set of chromosomes, and when they join during fertilization, the mother’s chromosomes merge with the father’s. Somatic cells, on the other hand, already contain two full sets of chromosomes. To make a clone, scientists transfer the DNA from an animal’s somatic cell into an egg cell that has had its nucleus and DNA removed. The egg develops into an embryo that contains the same genes as the cell donor. Then the embryo is implanted into an adult female’s uterus to grow.

In 1996, Scottish scientists cloned the first animal, a sheep they named Dolly. She was cloned using an udder cell taken from an adult sheep. Since then, scientists have cloned cows, cats, deer, horses, and rabbits. They still have not cloned a human, though. In part, this is because it is difficult to produce a viable clone. In each attempt, there can be genetic mistakes that prevent the clone from surviving. It took scientists 276 attempts to get Dolly right. There are also ethical concerns about cloning a human being.
Cloning

To cap this all off I have concluded that the human race will use cloning to remove our acceptability to diseases. Humans will eliminate the flaws that cause us to age and even “select” our size, improving our seeing, hearing, and thinking ability. We will clone ourselves into the perfect human being capable of exploring the universe around us. This all did not come from natural selection. I believe the components that evolved into what we are today was deliberate, our planet was seeded by outsiders who have been watching our development from afar. Someday, maybe sooner rather than later “they” will make themselves known and then we will join them exploring the infinite universe around us.

That is unless we destroy ourselves first.

-​

What do you think--?

Natural selection is a principal component of biological evolution.

The question, ''Is natural selection the solution to evolution?'' doesn't really make sense.

 

[james bond]

Even the creationist author of your article was not convinced he had found human footprints, why would any else even consider them as human-dino examples?

It means the human-dino footprints, even if genuine, aren't conclusive. At least to destroy evolution. Humans live with dinosaurs today such as the coelacanth. There are other dinosaur or prehistoric like creatures, but they aren't considered the same as those found in the prehistoric layers. I have to play the evolutionist game and not just say the global flood laid down the layers of the Earth.

Moreover, if someone claimed to have seen a dinosaur alive today, then they'd be considered for the looney farm, no?

Yet, here are some creatures alive today. Yes and no? (I haven't traveled to Africa, so haven't seen any . I hope to change that in the next ten years.)

Are dinosaurs alive today?

Are dinosaurs alive today? Where Jurassic Park went wrong!

creation.com

 

[james bond]

And yes, in earth's case, and in 4.5 Billion years of wildly varying conditions, including being bombarded by Billions of objects, including Water Filled Comets, I do believe it's certainly possible these many elements broke down and combined into a soup that was more conducive to life, not just from "a molten rock."
You are an ignorant and disingenuous simpleton neglecting the fact that it took 3 Billion of that 4.5 Billion years just to get 'more livable'/conducive.

There is no 4.5 B years as the 1956 dating by Patterson was performed incorrectly. There was contamination.

If there is no long time, then no evolution.

 

[abu afak]

There is no 4.5 B years as the 1956 dating by Patterson was performed incorrectly. There was contamination.

If there is no long time, then no evolution.

LOL
LINK? (AIG, Creation.con, Discovery?)

Your estimate/Claim of age?
`

 

[alang1216]

It means the human-dino footprints, even if genuine, aren't conclusive. At least to destroy evolution.

Not true. A genuine human-dino footprint, would destroy evolution as we know it. And whoever found it would be as famous as Darwin. Quite the incentive
.

Humans live with dinosaurs today such as the coelacanth. There are other dinosaur or prehistoric like creatures, but they aren't considered the same as those found in the prehistoric layers.

Science says humans evolved 60 million years after the last non-avian dinosaur. You do know coelacanth are not dinos, they are an ancient order of fish sea critters, like sharks.

 

[james bond]

Not true. A genuine human-dino footprint, would destroy evolution as we know it. And whoever found it would be as famous as Darwin. Quite the incentive

I've read they have been found, but Scientific American disagreed.

"However, in an attempt to dismiss these tracks, the Scientific American article did not include the real photos in their article, instead showing some pretty obvious fakes (probably Indian carvings) and not the actual prints, which they had access to. Why would they not show the real tracks? Because this evidence is highly problematic to their worldview, the theory of evolution. As evolutionary atheist Richard Dawkins observed, authenticated evidence of humans in the Carboniferous would “blow the theory of evolution out of the water.” (Dawkins, Free Inquiry, vol. 21, no. 4, 2001.)"

Fossil Footprints | Genesis Park

www.genesispark.com

Science says humans evolved 60 million years after the last non-avian dinosaur. You do know coelacanth are not dinos, they are an ancient order of fish sea critters, like sharks.

These articles and stories are usually what we have of prehistoric type creatures living today. Some people believe the prehistoric dinos are still living in Africa.

 

[james bond]

LOL
LINK? (AIG, Creation.con, Discovery?)

Your estimate/Claim of age?
`

What do you have to show Patterson's age of the Earth was valid? Nothing. Face it. I am a winner while you will always be a loser -- The Final Disclosure.

"
I’m not dying—but I am past my manufacturer’s expiration date. I have lived longer than both my parents, half of my grandparents, and seven out of eight of my great grandparents. I can do the math.


I don’t want the monthly newsletters to suddenly stop without explanation. This will be the last newsletter which brings things to a neat conclusion.


Looking back over the past 302 newsletters is like looking through photo albums of all the wonderful trips we have taken together. They contain many great memories that I am happy to have shared with you. It’s been a good run—but it can’t go on much longer.


The theory of evolution can’t go on much longer, either. It gets weaker every year, and is now on political life-support. If not for the worldview that depends upon it, it would have died long ago.

Lack of Material​

The more scientists look for evolutionary answers, the more problems they find. They are running out of straws to grasp, so the number of reports about the theory of evolution in the popular press and scientific journals has decreased significantly from what it was when we started writing this monthly newsletter. It used to be hard to decide which of the many articles published that month to discuss. Recently it has been hard to find anything to write about."

Here's a couple more. It goes to show creation science wins once again against evolution. Ho hum. Nothing new.

Science Against Evolution:

Scienceagainstevolution.org

scienceagainstevolution.org

Scienceagainstevolution.org

www.scienceagainstevolution.org

creation.com:

"Clair Patterson (1922–1995) is the man credited with dating the currently accepted age of the earth. But there is an ironic twist. Patterson did not use earth rocks. He used meteorites! That’s because, by Patterson’s time, it was widely believed that the earth had accumulated from particles and rocks called ‘planetesimals’,8 and that meteorites were junk left over from the earth’s formation.


The Bible reveals the true history of the world and we can date the events using the careful records it provides.

The age Patterson calculated was 4.55 billion years, plus or minus 70 million years.9 He also produced a graph of the composition of lead from four meteorites and lead from modern ocean-floor sediment. Because the ocean-floor sample plotted on the same line as the meteorites, Patterson argued that they all formed from the same cosmic material.


Prominent geologists, such as Arthur Holmes, were not happy. To use iron meteorites, they claimed, was wrong.10


How can we know that the earth and the meteorites formed at the same time? How can we know they are both from the same material? We can’t.

Even so, the number Patterson calculated in 1956 is still accepted today and universally quoted. His trial balloon is still floating.


Yet, as more ocean floor sediments have been analyzed, it has been found that they do not all fall on the straight line but plot all over the place.11 Furthermore, geologists are now saying the lead isotopes of the earth have been reset by the formation of the earth’s core, which means Patterson used the wrong history for the earth.


In spite of these and other problems, long-age scientists are still happy to work with 4.55 billion years. Actually, any number between 3 billion and 7 billion years would probably be okay for them, so 4.55 billion is a happy choice—and it looks precise and authoritative. It is large enough for the geologists and small enough for the astronomers. Everyone has plenty of time to work with, so there is nothing to gain by changing the number.


But it is worth remembering that all ages are trial balloons. They are not objective. Certainly the measurements are objective but they are not measuring age. To calculate an age the scientist needs to assume the history of his sample—something he cannot objectively check. And his assumptions are based on his naturalistic belief about the world."

Trial balloons and the age of the earth

Scientists release their calculated ‘age’ into academic space, never sure if it will float or be shot down like a balloon.

creation.com