What do you think about evolution?
What do you think about this?
(8 votes)
Loading...Similar Posts
How do you find out how much a child/teen rider can weigh without it being too much for a pony and bad for its health?
I'm not asking about any theories, that doesn't lead to anything, I'm asking how you can find out in practice .
Why does sauerkraut have to stay in its liquid?
When the white cabbage is fermented into sauerkraut.
Why do sheep bellow
Bypebiwa
Why do sheep actually bellow? are they bored or are they hungry? My mother's neighbor has sheep that don't get much to eat at the moment.
Enzymes denature at high temperatures?
Maybe this is a bit of a strange question, but we learned in biology that enzymes begin to denature at 40°C, losing their 3D structure and active site. And that's why a 40°C fever is so problematic. But what about, say, a sauna? Those are also very high temperatures. 😅
Self-watering horse keeps running?
Bysid1109
Hello, I hope someone here knows something. Two drinking troughs in my stable are broken. The taps don't close when the horse stops drinking, but instead keep running. Does anyone know how I can solve this problem, what I need to repair? Could it be the sealing ring?
Makes most sense, is a comprehensible well researched, proven and observable theory, and more reliable knowledge than a scientific theory there is no.
People who think evolution is fake, I always find something strange, usually are religious people, so the argumentation is also rarely scientific (watchmaker analogy e.g.)…
A theory is not automatically secured knowledge.
However, this analogy adapts quite well to the formation of the first multiplication cell. Also on jumps with non-viable intermediate stages. On the other hand – perhaps we overlook something decisive here.
Religion (i.w.S.) is not contrary to science, but what we usually think about religion is contrary to what we generally think about science.
Science is not a world image, but a method of creating, collecting and multiplying knowledge.
It is not true, because a theory in the scientific sense – in contrast to the thesis – is a statement that can be verified, that is to say can be proven as often as desired and always leads to the same result. Example: Physics, Classical Mechanics (Hebble Effect, Torque), Mathematics, Geometry, Relativity Theory, Sociology, Psychology …
So do I.
There are no jumps with non-viable intermediates.
Unless one follows the squadron of Roger Liebi, a theologian who studied knowledge of geology, paleontology and anthropology, to reduce the age of the earth to 5,000 years.
Read more 😉
“securedhe You know…”
= There’s nothing better about “knowing”
In addition, a scientific theory is secured knowledge. (as far as possible)
The theory of evolution is, however, one of the most assured, frequently verified and mostly verified theories that exist! Again and again she was tried to falsify, always in vain.
Just because you don’t know exactly how a certain detail works, a Creator God doesn’t fit right in there. Also, a Creator does not provide any explanation after the beginning of life, since even then it would have to have been created by anyone and that he also creates it again by someone, etc. = endless chain of creators created by creators.
In spite of gaps, evolution is much more logical than a cosmic sorcerer, which is just supposed to be there, and for its existence there is not the smallest real proof.
Of course, what one thinks about religion is usually contrary to what one thinks about science, because religion is usually based on belief, indoctrination and imitation, and science is based on research, thinking and well knowledge.
Religions with Creator Gods are also in many ways already in stark contrast to science, only through their inconsistent logic, which requires all life, no matter how Simpel, a Creator, except the most complex Creator itself, DA should be at once logical, which was simply always “da was” without any cause.
a theory is an explanation model.
and it must be falsifiable by definition, otherwise it is not scientific theory.
that is abiogenesis
the book DARWIN IRRT – CHRISTIAN AMDERS
“MIS CHILDREN ON THE DIRECTIVE OF DARWINSCHEN EVOLUTIONTHEORIES
The study of the Darwinian ancestry did not teach us how birds developed from reptiles, mammals from older four-footed children, four-footed fishes or vertebrates from invertebrates. The Darwinian doctrine concerning the invertebrates has the same difficulties. The LÜCKE between the vertebrates and the vertebrates, between the worms and the hollows, between the hollows and the proto zones is so large that we cannot overlook them. Each layer, each stage, when followed by Darwin, is a categorical novel, UNVERBUNDEN with the previous stage. You are looking for common interfaces that bridge these gaps, because you will not find them.
So some biologists hardly remember that the systematic is the basis of the whole ancestry, that it is the certainty, what we know, while the development theories are what we MUST. Even today’s modern theory largely deviates from the Darwins. Not all biologists are convinced that modern theory is also mandatory. Those who know exact methods as physicists, philologists or theorists of knowledge have no doubt about the highly hypothetical character of the Darwinian ancestry, because at each stage of development of the living, new things occur which cannot be derived in any way from the lower stage. And so I say that selection in reality cannot create new things, at the most it can eradicate deficient, lifeless. The environment can only “provoke” hidden installations, it only looks as if it had created them. Therefore, Darwin does not respond satisfactorily to the question of where the plants originate.
This thicket of related relationships, which arises from the opaque processes of recombination and feature unfolding, cannot be explained by the Darwin scheme or system. Darwin’s theory leads to the conclusion that the mutation rates are too low, as an organism could be guided into an evolution line by random mutations in a specific direction, i.e. against the supply of natural selection. There is also no evidence or direct concession that these MUST events or changes have taken place, as Darwin wants to believe in his stage manager of organic evolution. In my book, I refer to numerous scientists who contradict Darwin’s teaching. Christian Anders (Lanoo)”
Funny, the evolutionary denier almost always refer only to Darwin and his findings, and all the research that has repeatedly confirmed the theory of evolution, even though of course details have been changed and overtaken and will ignore.
Denying evolution is similar to claiming witches would exist!
It’s like, “es gives no jumps with non-viable intermediate stages” is an assertion that is unfounded. Anyone who claims such a thing must also prove the correctness of this claim. This evidence is missing. That is why this is an unfounded claim.
This (evolutionary history) however also had eons of eternity time for evolution in its complexity (from the oeuvre to cancers, to land animals, birds, primates, etc.) in the course of natural selection.
The easier the life form, the faster evolution. Bacteria need only a short time to produce species that are resistant to antibiotics. Complex forms of life, for example polar bears, need millennia to adapt to climatic changes and often time is too short, the species dies out (e.g. mastodon).
That would be a mistake. But fortunately, there are enough wise minds which, on the one hand, see no contradiction in creationism and evolutionary theory.
I see this: If one already knows that mountains were created by folding land masses (former seabed), how could one assume that God did not consciously do so to create land in the world seas, as the Bible describes creation?
Also with the development of species (evolution).
I see no contradiction of science with the history of creation in the best will. Better said: the more intensive I deal with these questions, the more clearly I see the scientific confirmation of the biblical genesis.
Yes.
Animal species are demonstrably altered by evolution. You can see that.
This is not discussed in science.
This may apply to certain sciences such as mathematics (where links are by definition under our full control) or macroscopic physics (where the statistics of the extremely large numbers always state constant results) but also subject areas such as psychology and meteorology are called “sciences”, although we can never know ALL there, as there are many hidden variables or extremely complex systems with which one has to somehow handle and therefore cannot necessarily come to reliable results.
This is the doctrine, but still only an assertion that is neither proven nor refuted.
I’m glad we agreed here. In my opinion, the shift in complexity is the most important in all evolution.
In addition to the “darwinist” teaching concept (that evolution is done by random mutation and readout) and creationism (Instantschöp ex nihilo) there are countless other ideas about evolution, so there are more than two explanation models here. But whoever wants to propagate the doctrine, of course, likes to push all other thoughts into the creative corner.
The mechanisms of evolution theory can be observed in the laboratory and in nature.
And only she can plausible explain why there are no fossils of today’s living (recent) species.
In principle, perhaps, but not every theory can be proven or falsified with our means. There are many intermediate stages. For example, you cannot travel to the past or to the future in order to fully review models and predictions.
A sounding technical concept like this can describe a complex, unrecognized phenomenon, but not explain, and thus does not help us.
And in heaven, the fair is very important. P.s. The book DARWIN IRRT has not been rewritten to date (his source[n]) soon 40 years…. and until then no real criticism has been received. P.s. 2 shows the story once again, where science was very united, then was not right and as you say, JEDES YEAR is rewritten. What is right today is wrong tomorrow and vice versa. This arrogance will cause a lot of suffering. It’s all right to me who thinks of what. But please read a content before you say anything. Conversely, this happened and thus also a legitimate criticism.
She’s proven once. And it is also quite logical.
If we take random mutation and selection. Then it simply follows a development of the things which adapt to the selection criteria.
This can be traced to super simple example:
If I give you playing cards. By chance. And I’ll tell you, select these cards by colors. Then I can tell you now. At the end you will only have playing cards of a color in the hand. Although I gave you the playing cards by chance.
When we try to live this: The color is the selection printing. And the playing cards I give you are the random mutations. At some point, there is one that is selected. And sometime later, another one is selected. etc. And at the end, the mutations which correspond to the selection pressure are accumulated.
In our card example we have very strong selection pressure. Because we sort out the cards hard. In nature, this is logically often not the case (apart from animal breeding where we humanly select hard according to criteria).
But what only means it takes more generations. But will also have unimaginable much time. in a few hundred million years can live very many generations. If we start from a generation of 20 years (what is a lot) like men, we still have 5mio generations on 100 mio years.
Hm…
I also like to hear fairy tales (Rev.12,9).
At the end there is also something “Positves” (Rev.20,4-5; 21,4).
That’s right, you’re also from a beautiful fairy tale book.
Everything else would be illogical.
Everything has evolved or continues to develop.
There is also evidence. Dinosaurs or other fossils.
Evolution theory is alternativeless. It is currently the only plausible explanation of the origin of species, their origin and change, which is scientifically verifiable and legible.
Alternative concepts such as creationism and intelligent design are brain spins that are completely without scientific basis and therefore reject from anyone who has only a little brain. They are as true as “Quidditch in the Change of Times” or “Grimm’s Fairy tale”. The facts even speak clearly against these concepts.
Evolutionary theory has been researched for almost 200 years. Since then, so many convincing and valid evidence has been found that we have to consider them as practical evidence. We have fossils, DNA comparisons, morphological stage series, rudiments, atavisms, laboratory experiments, open-air investigations, etc. And last but not least, from the point of view of the evolutionary biologists, the coronapandemic was nothing more than another clear evidence of the theory of evolution. The constant appearance of new mutations and their spread was and is a picture book example for the work of evolution. Who else doubts, this is really not to help. Unfortunately, there is no vaccination against stupidity.
Although creationists are not tired of shooting against the theory of evolution repeatedly with pseudo-scientific arguments, they have never been able to give them only an argument that would have resisted a scientific review.
because there is no vaccination against stupidity. I would like to have an answer that makes sense to a certain question.. I mean we have several life forms that have parables wings, have fly as well as birds or worms have ringel muscles and move away and sneak something different .. and and .. my question is; if there are so many “equal” animals that function approximately equal.. Why there is not a life form that can reach us in Causes of Intelligence. I mean, there’s not a single form that comes close to our intelligence.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. All mechanisms of evolutionary theory are observable in the laboratory and in nature:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30816905/
Evolution can be observed live; it's not something you can just believe in. For example, a fish population splits, genetically and morphologically (body shape):
https://sciencev1.orf.at/news/15821.html
Plants here:
https://www.pflanzenforschung.de/de/pflanzenwissen/journal/evolution-zum-beobachten-2009
Why do whales and dolphins move in an up-down motion? And not like fish, with a left-right motion?
Because they used to be land animals that walked on their legs:
And have corresponding bones:
https://uk.whales.org/whales-dolphins/why-do-whale-and-dolphin-tails-go-up-and-down/
No mammal is able to breathe in water because there are no gills.
Interestingly, whales are mammals…
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wale
Only the theory of evolution can plausibly explain why there are no fossilized fossils of modern (extant) animal species. And why there are index fossils in different layers of the Earth, which are also dated differently.
And no, there are no “living fossils”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
Macro-evolution is a human concept. God says otherwise in the Bible. Creation versus evolution: The things we see and use—houses, furniture, everyday objects—were created by humans. The other things we live in—the earth, the sky, the sun, the moon, the stars, animals and plants, the centuries-old trees, the air we need to breathe—did no one make them? Did they come into being by chance? That's illogical, unbelievable, INCONCEIVABLE!
The question of evolution is actually too simplistic, because only something that already exists can develop. Where does it come from? That's the fundamental question:
The Big Bang model is not purely scientific. While the physics and mathematics behind it are scientifically sound, it also requires unprovable, ideological assumptions.
Prof. Hawking says: "However, we are unable to construct cosmological models without additional ideological assumptions."
From a purely objective perspective, order and fine-tuning demonstrate intelligence. When you walk into an orderly, tidy room, you immediately know that an intelligent being was at work there. Or you know that your car didn't come from a hurricane and a pile of scrap.
So we also find an exact fine-tuning in the universe:
1. One example is the electrical equilibrium in the universe. This is precisely calibrated to 1 in 10^38. If just a single electron were added or missing , there would be no planets/stars, etc. – only highly diluted gas.
2. Another example is the force of gravity. It is set to an accuracy of 1 in 10^35. It's more likely to win the lottery three times in a row and get six numbers right than for the force of gravity to be set that precisely by chance.
3. Or the mass ratio of elementary particles: This is precisely calibrated to allow stable matter to exist in the universe. Specifically, it's calibrated to 1 to 10^40. The difference is a tiny 0.14%. If this tiny difference didn't exist, there would be no stars, no sun, etc. Our very existence depends on 0.14%!
4. Earth is at exactly the right distance from the sun for life to exist. If it were just a little farther ahead or farther behind, it would be either too hot or too cold.
5. The sun consistently radiates the right amount of energy to support life on Earth. The Earth itself is just the right size (larger = denser atmosphere = too hot; smaller = thinner atmosphere = too little oxygen), and the moon, which controls the tides, is also just the right size.
The sun is also just the right size. If it were larger, it would be unstable, and dangerous solar flares would threaten life on Earth. If it were smaller, Earth's orbit would be closer to the sun—due to tidal effects, Earth would no longer rotate on its axis, and one side would be eternally hot and the other eternally freezing cold.
6. The Earth has an annual orbit of 299.8 million km. If it were just a little less, all the water would evaporate, and the Earth would become a desert. If it were just 2% more, all the water here would be frozen! The Earth has exactly the right orbit!
More examples here : (Benjamin Scholl on YouTube) Has science refuted the creation account? | Benjamin Scholl
These examples show how precisely the universe is coordinated. And this precise fine-tuning is supposed to be the result of a chaotic Big Bang? Chaos never creates order in our world. I lack the faith to assume the opposite about the origin of the universe. Besides, a Big Bang wouldn't explain the creation of information, which is absolutely necessary for life. I can write more about that if you're interested.
To put this fine-tuning into perspective, the following is said: There are infinitely many universes (multiverse) and we are in one where everything fits purely by chance.
However, this claim is unproven. No other universe has ever been discovered. We only know of the existence of our own universe! Since the existence of other universes cannot be scientifically verified, it cannot be a scientific hypothesis; it is pure speculation and an objection that should not be taken seriously.
I am convinced that the universe was created. The Big Bang has not been proven at all, and it is based on unprovable assumptions (because mass and energy cannot exist without a cause).
Allah bless you!
This is a “fine tuning” as with the river, whose surroundings were created by the Creator so that the river finds itself in the sea.
Without this “fine vote”, no river would find the way in the sea.
How did the approximately 1.8 million species (x2 m/w) have burst in the Ark if there is no evolution?
Did someone say that? Scientific theories, including the Big Bang model, are based on observations, experiments and mathematical models. Yes, depending on the assumptions, they are constantly being tested and if not permanently discarded or adapted. However, assumptions in themselves play a subordinate role here. The analogy with the car or the room, because it compares very different types of entities.
Things are just as they are, because if they weren’t like that, no one would be there to wonder why things are like. Say, we can only exist in a universe that meets the conditions for our existence. The fact that we exist in a universe that allows life does not prove a divine fine tuning, as our existence in a non-life-friendly universe would be impossible.
the book DARWIN IRRT – CHRISTIAN AMDERS
This is an intro by Christian Anders on his book:
“MIS CHILDREN ON THE DIRECTIVE OF DARWINSCHEN EVOLUTIONTHEORIES
The study of the Darwinian ancestry did not teach us how birds developed from reptiles, mammals from older four-footed children, four-footed fishes or vertebrates from invertebrates. The Darwinian doctrine concerning the invertebrates has the same difficulties. The LÜCKE between the vertebrates and the vertebrates, between the worms and the hollows, between the hollows and the proto zones is so large that we cannot overlook them. Each layer, each stage, when followed by Darwin, is a categorical novel, UNVERBUNDEN with the previous stage. You are looking for common interfaces that bridge these gaps, because you will not find them.
So some biologists hardly remember that the systematic is the basis of the whole ancestry, that it is the certainty, what we know, while the development theories are what we MUST. Even today’s modern theory largely deviates from the Darwins. Not all biologists are convinced that modern theory is also mandatory. Those who know exact methods as physicists, philologists or theorists of knowledge have no doubt about the highly hypothetical character of the Darwinian ancestry, because at each stage of development of the living, new things occur which cannot be derived in any way from the lower stage. And so I say that selection in reality cannot create new things, at the most it can eradicate deficient, lifeless. The environment can only “provoke” hidden installations, it only looks as if it had created them. Therefore, Darwin does not respond satisfactorily to the question of where the plants originate.
This thicket of related relationships, which arises from the opaque processes of recombination and feature unfolding, cannot be explained by the Darwin scheme or system. Darwin’s theory leads to the conclusion that the mutation rates are too low, as an organism could be guided into an evolution line by random mutations in a specific direction, i.e. against the supply of natural selection. There is also no evidence or direct concession that these MUST events or changes have taken place, as Darwin wants to believe in his stage manager of organic evolution. In my book, I refer to numerous scientists who contradict Darwin’s teaching. Christian Anders (Lanoo)”
The question is whether the Lord Anders has ever heard of Archaeopteryx (Reptil-Vogel), Ichtyostega (Fish-Amphibie) or beak animal (Reptil/Vogel/Säugetier).
The vertebrates include two of the three large groups of choir animals, the third group also called the Craniota (skull animals) Vertebrata (swirl animals). Chorda dorsalis, a rod-shaped support apparatus on the back and around it, for example, produces the spinal column in humans.
Spindleless are defined by which they do not have a spinal column, they do not form a uniform and natural relationship group
Here a worksheet from the 9th class with a family tree of some animal trunks.
Only that it can usually be derived from the previous stage, thus eliminating the need for any hidden installations. In part, the “new” organism remains even only a functional rudiment of the old feature. In humans, for example, the bone (example tail spine) or the functionless muscles of the ear shells (they used to move/or align the ear)
How does he respond to evolution would act against natural selection? Evolution makes what works and it can sometimes also go different ways to achieve a similar result. for example Long-term evolution experiment there was apparently a selection pressure in the direction of larger cells (All 12 cultures were bigger, but among themselves they were fluctuating by up to one third)
Only that they have been observed by now, as in the experiment just mentioned, if you haven’t crowned yourself under a stone for the last 3 years, you might have also got some of Corona and his various tribes.
And this is supposed to bridge the gaps? It’s not worth reading for me. Because by this statement you already insult my intelligence!
WARNING WOVON? If Christian Anders had as much garbage in his first sentence as with you, I would never have listened to him. We’re not a relative, we’re not an outlaw. I don’t deserve money with his books. But please. If that’s what’s going on for you? You can still use technical terms to specify (mosaic forms) to impress me at least. I would ask them to discuss this issue. Enough styling heads can be experienced to keep impressing me and waste time. Sign up again next year when the SCIENCE LITERATUR has made “new” discoveries that CHRISTIAN ANDERS has written in his books for over 30 years… as has often happened in recent years…
All right.
You found the mosaic forms unlogical. And I asked you the question the properties a link should have, with which you would at the same time provide an explanation, Why? the association of characteristics of groups in individual species it does not meet.
Unfortunately, you deviate and instead refers to the Paywall (which at least according to the preface looks very like waste money). You would never have seriously thought about the question and simply Mr Anders’ Claim of missing interfaces is unreflected.
It should not be an instruction, but a warning. At least you seemed to be very close to this option of travel.
my dear, if someone falls below a certain level, I do not teach the better. The Buddho said to it; THE LEE IS THE BEST LHRMEISTER.
Example: There are sometimes situations as a father/mother that you simply have to let the child run to the Rhine to learn. You know what I mean.
In any case, if I had changed my mind for a long time, someone would seriously teach me better. Because then the books are not worth the paper and would throw it on the garbage.
If you want to know that;
Interfaces are, then it’s like someone’s telling me, ANYTHING ALS THREE. Does that make sense? No. Did this answer throw pearls before the columns again? Maybe.
Back to:
Take these few euros and look at Mr Anders’s book. Preliminary so much; the dear orthodox science confuses WIRKING and URSACHE!
It is fundamentally wrong to define an effect as a cause.
Sorry, but for everything else take these few euros and/or the free video on youtube on this topic.
I like to refer to Christian Anders’s books, but I can’t do more. That’s a lot of effort. Because only a hint needs a lot of explanation so that it makes sense. Only thrown into space, because it is so contrary to general science, is at most deprived of hearing and laughter. An attempt;? THE BOOK teaches; THE FEEL STAM OF MENSCHEN. See? It is proven that THE MENSCH is the most primitive being. More laughter, or rage?
No offense, all good.
Asked neutral: What features would a potential link between two groups and why is it a link?
If the answer to the features of both groups is to be found, we are again in the mosaic forms, including the three species mentioned.
That’s free, of course. However, it is a very good way to never question your own views in order to get buried deeper and deeper in them. (According to whether or not they are informed.) Especially if you ignore counter-references.
The reality is seemingly like an infinitely long security key that you can or could only decrypt with an infinitely large computer.
In German: We cannot know exactly.
Scratching is what is possible.
A single atom can already be perceived as an infinitely large world.
The plains of the depth and the wideness merge in the eyes of the viewer.
Our vision and thinking of things are predefined.
Known knowledge is only a small piece of the ‘given’ infinity in which we are located.
The theory of evolution, whether true or wrong or not entirely or partially true or false, do not explain to us the basic questions of any existence, reality or consciousness.
We already have so much knowledge available.
However, every further knowledge will always remain the beginning of infinity.
What or what has our reality as it now looks predefined?
God…Gods…Chaos…Zufall…Karma…Glück…Pech…
The answer to this question is not detachable.
Apparently, everything indicates something that is called “God” and something that is called “Applause”.
This inevitably leads to the question: “Why are everyone doing such a stress if nobody can have any idea of everything?” 😂
Yes, we can know exactly. Either it is given to us and if you have NO counter-arguments, it sees and accepts, OR you bring counter-arguments and find it out maybe in 1000 years?
may recommend the following;
the book DARWIN IRRT – CHRISTIAN ANDERS
This is an intro by Christian Anders on his book:
“MIS CHILDREN ON THE DIRECTIVE OF DARWINSCHEN EVOLUTIONTHEORIES
The study of the Darwinian ancestry did not teach us how birds developed from reptiles, mammals from older four-footed children, four-footed fishes or vertebrates from invertebrates. The Darwinian doctrine concerning the invertebrates has the same difficulties. The LÜCKE between the vertebrates and the vertebrates, between the worms and the hollows, between the hollows and the proto zones is so large that we cannot overlook them. Each layer, each stage, when followed by Darwin, is a categorical novel, UNVERBUNDEN with the previous stage. You are looking for common interfaces that bridge these gaps, because you will not find them.
So some biologists hardly remember that the systematic is the basis of the whole ancestry, that it is the certainty, what we know, while the development theories are what we MUST. Even today’s modern theory largely deviates from the Darwins. Not all biologists are convinced that modern theory is also mandatory. Those who know exact methods as physicists, philologists or theorists of knowledge have no doubt about the highly hypothetical character of the Darwinian ancestry, because at each stage of development of the living, new things occur which cannot be derived in any way from the lower stage. And so I say that selection in reality cannot create new things, at the most it can eradicate deficient, lifeless. The environment can only “provoke” hidden installations, it only looks as if it had created them. Therefore, Darwin does not respond satisfactorily to the question of where the plants originate.
This thicket of related relationships, which arises from the opaque processes of recombination and feature unfolding, cannot be explained by the Darwin scheme or system. Darwin’s theory leads to the conclusion that the mutation rates are too low, as an organism could be guided into an evolution line by random mutations in a specific direction, i.e. against the supply of natural selection. There is also no evidence or direct concession that these MUST events or changes have taken place, as Darwin wants to believe in his stage manager of organic evolution. In my book, I refer to numerous scientists who contradict Darwin’s teaching. Christian Anders (Lanoo)”
p.s. also gives lectures on Youtube, here one of many, you get along with the whole theme, until the entire universe is created. OM
LANOO SPRICHT (Folge571) Neandertal of the undeserved Nobel Prize
https://youtu.be/SNTOPY8SCb8?si=FvNjXmkg_YTqJ5Cd
Evolution itself is a fact. This can be observed, shown.
The theory of evolution is, in turn, one of the most frequently challenged theories of science history, which has surpassed all attempts of falsification without prejudice, whereby all discoveries in various fields of science (palontology, inheritance, DNA, etc.) have led to their improvement over time, never to a fundamental reflection. Furthermore, theory has demonstrated its ability to make accurate predictions.
Sorry, the theory of evolution has not yet made any predictions that could have been observed. Lack of opportunity to wait millions of years.
As in the so-called. Climate research here is the mistake that one is confused with the truth and is a prognosis as facts.
You once again showed yourself a carved dogmatist here.
Sure. One of the first was even made by Darwin himself in 1862.
“The giant hawkmoth, endemic to Madagascar, was discovered in 1882. Its existence, however, was predicted 20 years earlier—and nearly 5,700 miles away—by Charles Darwin, as he sat in his London office inspecting an unusual Star-of-Bethlehem orchid sent by a colleague.”
Darwin’s Hawkmoth | California Academy of Sciences (calacademy.org)
No one mistakes models with the “truth” – whatever you like to understand. Models try to replicate our climate system as accurately as possible and are therefore able to meet sound predictions. This works in both directions – both in the future and in retroactive (hindcasting). So we can apply a model to the past and let it predict the future (from our perspective the past). As a result, the accuracy of a model can also be demonstrated experimentally. Now you have to call me this scientist who has described predictions as facts. Otherwise, I’ll repay this claim as another deception.
This is not how predictions in science work. The predictive power of science is based on the ability to say things that we could not have said otherwise. These predictions do not have to relate to things that happen in the future. You can also include conclusions about past events that we have not yet found. Evolution theory makes all the time predictions, such as in morphology, ecology, biogeography, genetics or with fossils.
you are
Evolution is not a contradiction to creation through “the spirit” as it does.
Because when creation takes place in the course of time, it is not to be distinguished from evolution, or it is precisely that: evolution!
I don’t think of an instantane potion “ex nihilo” because “natura non facit saltus.”
What I doubt, however, is the random hypothesis – namely that the only motor of evolution should be random mutation and readout.
I think this is a very crisp thesis, which has actually been invented only because the today-proclaimed world image of reductionist-materialist almost leaves no other way.
Why is she very shaky after your view?
The selection greatly reduces the chance.
I did an experiment. Imagine six cubes. With a throw 6 times the 6 cubes is quite difficult because unwarming. After hunterden throws, it is still very likely the 6’s have fallen.
But if you read it out. Make it with in cut 15 cubes and with guarantee to get under 100 cubes 6 6.
I understand the argument. But these cubes have many sides, and millions of years is not too long for beings with slow generations. It also does not explain how the first reproductive cell has emerged, or large jumps in evolution with non-viable intermediate stages. Let alone phenomena of mind such as consciousness, intelligence, perception and memory.
There are also not the only mechanisms, but many more have been discovered and described for 150 years. There are, for example, phenotypic plasticity, epigenetics, endosymbiosis, evo devo and so on. Even of mutations and natural selection, there are different complex levels.
These processes can be observed directly, which is why I would not say they were invented. What processes do you think are still going into evolution that science has not yet recognized, or better said, because of its “reductionist-materialist worldview“not allowed?
Correct. It’s not part of theory. She doesn’t want to explain. This is the topic of the abiogenesis. So that’s the result of life. And yes, there they are still unexplained. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
Yes it does according to my view. If you throw 6 cubes 20 000 times, you’ve thrown 65% of all the cases still no 6.
With selection this is correspondingly reduced to as good as 100% at 100 cubes. This is a reduction of 2,000 faches, and that’s a lot.
The man has ne generations length of about 20 years. Let’s say about 4 million years. This makes: 200 000 generations. I think that’s a lot.
And that for the changes from the Australopithicus to today’s people. These are not too big changes that have happened. So on a biological level. Nen larger brain is now a lower development as the escape of an eye etc.
They don’t exist. What is a non-viable intermediate level for you? Are you referring to non-reduced complexity? It’s just bullshit. We haven’t found anything yet, as far as I know, which would be non-reducing complex.
Not part of the theory of evolution. So this theory doesn’t want to explain this thing. or does not make any statements about it.
Evolution is not only a theory, she is a observable fact.
Real-time observation Evolution in multicellular and single learning (for a few days) is already routine in science. Genetic sequences and fossil recordings make it possible to reconstruct stem trees and development paths.
In addition, the synthetic evolutionary theory has scientific consensus and is a collaborative product of global scientific work, which is also proveable.
It is not a theory in the sense of daily language use, it is a theory of science theory. ET is one of the best secured and proven scientific theories ever and can even be observed.
You don’t like them, but we don’t talk about the color of a clothing.
It doesn’t matter whether I think it is logical or not – evolution has long been proven. We can look at some species of evolution, classic example: birch tensioner – industrial melanism.
This example shows no evolution in itself, as the birch tensioner could possibly already carry the plants for several colors. The Chamaeleon can change its color even within a short time.
However, thanks to research, such as fossil findings, logical leads and other evidence, one can consider an evolution very likely.
That’s why the example proves evolution: In times of air pollution, the bright animals were selected away, in times of clean air the dark variants were selected away. And that within a few generations! A more beautiful example of evolution is unimaginable. And no, birch tensioners cannot change color in the course of their lives.
Mutation means that the genome is changed.
gives no mutation.
It sits the Mutation of all in the genome caused by the changed conditions.
Then there would not be countless mutations, only one of them permeated.
This only works because the possibilities for both colors are already created in the genes.
Evolution is good. Otherwise, I would still plan as a single person in the mud.
The development of animal species and also of human beings is completely understandable by means of fossils. Don’t know what to shake.
You can see that.
And why have they developed?
Because it was possible.
Fake. See Book of Behe: Darwin’s Blackbox.
Critics were made to death for hundreds of years. Especially rigid : biologists
Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution https://amzn.eu/d/hqvrXuR
Behe’s book is unscientific and nothing more than Creationist propaganda. Evolution is a fact that is one thousand times occupied. Whoever seriously doubts her has said no more all the senses together.
Behe, au Backe: A hardcore-creationist and engineer, who calls himself a biology exaggerator.
I believe that God has created us in such a way that adaptations take place within a basic type of beings. (For example, that dogs have developed from wolves)
I therefore believe in Basic model. For me, this means that God has created certain basic types of animals and has then created humans (so to say as a basic type of animals). (As it is written in the Bible, that God created the animals according to their own way (which I understand here as a basic type) and then created man)
In the basic model, there is at the beginning a certain basic type which splits into different types of the same basic type over generations.
The following figure shows the difference of the basic model (on the Right Page, starting from “B” to the theory of evolution left Page, starting from “A”) when I now proceed from the theory of evolution to Darwin or Lamarck.
The evolution of Darwin and Lamarck (i.e. beyond a basic type) cannot be demonstrated experimentally. It is a process that should have taken place over millions of years.
From my point of view, belief in the theory of evolution according to Darwin and Lamarck is a belief where one believes something blind (without evidence that adaptation has taken place beyond a basic type). But I do not blame anyone who believes in this theory of evolution. (This is important to me to mention)
Yes, of course, the evolution cannot, because something like a “basic model” does not exist. Such a transition would speak against the law of monophylia. There are no evidence and there is no consistent definition of a “basic type” – the boundaries are considered by any creationist himself. To date, NO creationist has Phylogeny Challenge mastered.
I only see that a basic model does not exist as an assumption made by you. From my point of view it does not necessarily correspond to the truth. (which should not be a personal attack against you now)
From my point of view, it would at least speak against the concept of monophyly. That monophyly is a law, I see it differently. (Act means to me that monophyly is absolutely the truth.)
I didn’t say that, and at least I can’t judge it.
At least I can’t judge that.
You mean the pseudo-science baraminology?
Don’t change the idea of your faith with science.
You can see that I am confusing the idea of my faith with science here, I see it differently.
The strong convictions can be From my point of view, however, it does not necessarily have to do so and from my point of view do not necessarily. Of course you can see that differently.
By the way, you have only informed your view of science and faith here,
without even having attacked my point of view. (This should not be a accusation of me now, and of course you can see it differently. I just noticed that now.)
From my point of view, science and faith can also harmonize with each other wonderfully. I look at science as an opportunity where I can marvel at God’s works and get to know his genius from a different perspective.
But what is clear to me is that God is the creator of everything (including that of the laws of nature). That is, as a creator, he can do things that we cannot explain with a science consideration detached from God. I am thinking, for example, of supernatural healings that (directly) have occurred after prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. I’ve been able to find out.
Science deals with knowledge. In contrast to faith, wishes and hope play no role in science, you want to know what is true, regardless of what you want. Even hypotheses are clearly chosen in science on the basis of facts and tested methodically and systematically. Only what has a clear overweight of arguments, evidence and evidence will be provisionalaccepted. In science one always tries to refute such hypothesis – because if this is possible, there would be no correct explanation for given facts. In faith, however, the strong convictions lead to the fact that one does not accept, ignore, displace, or with arbitraryad hocAdopted by the Commission. Isn’t that the definition of “something blind; without arguments, evidences to believe”?
As far as I know, it means that evolution takes place through mutations, so randomly, but I think that genes also adapt to conditions. Just find it illogical that a recurring mutation eventually leads to a great change
Both take place by random mutations, but also by reinforcing advantageous features by positive selection. (as dogs are consciously bred, this happens in small also in nature, through the selection of the partner e.g.)
Well, how did Bonobos develop? Everyone has sex with everyone. Don’t think that females with special features get more offspring.
Proper genes adapt to the circumstances to a certain extent, which is called “epigenetics”. However, this merely describes activating or deactivating certain genes and cannot be inherited from subsequent generations. So any correct change of genes happens by random mutation. And must first of all pass into the germ cells to be inherited.
If a pixel on a picture changes by chance for 10 millennia. then have a completely different picture. Where’s that illogical? It follows directly from this that something small often changes.
The stalactites and stalakmites are also an example of this. Individual water drops produce these structures.
What you forget is the selection. Advantageous mutations do not have to happen again. Because the mutations are inherited and due to the selection they are put into the species.
If I happen to give you a 1 euro. Or a piece of metal. And that would do 10 mio times. Then you would have been at the end of leuter euro. Because you’re trying to pick up the euro.
Whoever dies can no longer reproduce.
Bonobos have Now Everyone with each other sex, as it was at the beginning of their species, can no longer say today.
The possibility that everything that we see has arisen through evolution is thus unlikely to have to escape any reason.
There is absolutely nothing, not even in the least reasonable theory that allows such a thing.
Anyone who thinks only a little bit about how many conditions must come together in a very short time, only so that the smallest can evolve, comes to a realization that a thousand sixth in the lottery seem more probable than evolution.
Everything else works only in the laboratory and, or under controlled conditions, and thus by proof that it cannot go without a God.
Evolution is an observed fact and the theory of evolution is the best known explanation for it.
I urge the principle of “evolution” from the engine of evolution.
One can say, for example, “Evolution is geologically observable”, thanks to skeletal findings, etc. – but with that it is not yet explained how evolution takes place, so what it drives.
“Applicable mutation and readout” would be such a motor. “The Will of the Being” would be another one that was probably described by Lamarck. “The Divine Geits” a third. All these could also work at the same time.
And the acceptance of a creator who randomly knows exactly how life must look is more likely? Of course not! A Creator does not solve the problem of unprobability. The anthropic ptonzip fortunately already.
The anthropic principle if it is to explain the deviation of life:
A very high ontological cost factor, just to avoid “the spirit”, isn’t it true?
I don’t think you’ve understood the theory of evolution completely or because I’m not talking about “in no time” about millions, billions of years. There are so many examples and indications for evolution that can be watched live today.
Not really. It is enough a condition that ensures that something noticeably ensures that the living being can multiply more than another. There’s no need for many.
That’s exactly the opposite. Reading or Selection increases the probability drastically that is what is actually read out.
The theory of evolution is perfectly documented, by means of
mosaic forms;
homologies,
analogues,
Rudiments,
breathing and
Microorganisms.
Documents are not enough. Evolutionary theory must be proven and tested. Because of this, it is not a theory, but facts that are not to be rejected.
The evidence yields molecular biology. All living beings have emerged from a common original form. The genetic code is universally identical in all living beings and ATP – adenosine phosphate is the universal energy carrier of all organisms. Relevance! The sequence of protein biosynthesis is the same for all living beings except for a few aspects, because the same 20 amino acids are used in the synthesis of the proteins.
I know your answer to these facts beforehand. There are, unfortunately, creationists who tend to have any scientific facts and then who are still titling themselves as realists. Many of them are even convinced that the earth is flat.
Any argument is pointless, as only their own opinion applies. You speak against a wall.
I hope you don’t belong to it and wish you a nice day!
Look at the profile. Especially the last section…
🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁
Whoever comes from a composhauf is completely out of doubt…
…
LOOOOL …
🤣🤣😹😹🤣🤣💦💦💦💦
Now after the theory of evolution, that should be possible.
For the compost baptism is a little smaller than the universe, and there are already some good conditions that are necessary to create something larger.
Think if your composth baptism was distributed throughout the universe and should develop life.
So when the scientists turn around in the grave.
Why did they not turn about their thoughts of evolution 🤔🤭🥴😂.
Wait, because there’s no monkey jumping out of a compassion, is the theory of evolution wrong? Leggomio, every scientist turns around in the grave.
and did you follow an evolution?
That apes or anything else is getting bigger?
Got a compost at home and there’s always a lot of flying.
Now prove to me that there is no compost that compost is an illusion and religion.
If you don’t understand, you have absolutely not understood the theory of evolution.
Ouch. Very painful to read it!
Thank you for the info. I know.
An example of countless: