According to science, how does a new species develop?

[Two Thumbs]

how did a single cell critter, give birth to a multicellular and why would that creature give birth to something that would eat it?

Cells don't give birth, they divide. One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line decreases, as a general rule. Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human".. 100,000 years? Again, kids might usually live. 1 million years? Probably not so much.

While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.

hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?


why would a cell divide into predator and prey?

We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain

why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?

Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.

Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?

neither

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cells don't give birth, they divide. One would think the simplest idea for "the first time" is that a cell divided ,as did another, and their progenies got together and functioned together.


Traveling backward back in time, each species ability to produce viable offspring with an ancestor of its line decreases, as a general rule. Should you travel back in time 10,000 years, you would probably do fine to have a baby with an "ancient human".. 100,000 years? Again, kids might usually live. 1 million years? Probably not so much.

While this is a general rule, you should get the idea.

hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?


why would a cell divide into predator and prey?

We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain

why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?

Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.

Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?

neither

Sissy cop out

 

[sealybobo]

hey, do you sharpen axes so other people can split hairs?


why would a cell divide into predator and prey?

We are all predators and prey. It’s called a food chain

why did something that only ate rock split into something that would eat it?

Clay and clingy mold dna and micro organisms that like those rocks were cooked up in stars that exploded billions of years ago.

Or god did it. Which explanation seems more likely to you?

neither

Sissy cop out

Well the truth is more amazing than any story made up in any storybook. Like for example how the Big Bang happened. Or how first generation stars had to explode in order to make planets moons gold iron and even people. What’s easier to understand 5000 years or 13.6 billion?

But nowhere in space are there angels, demons, ghosts, devils or gods. It’s too cold.

 

[james bond]

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.

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
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??

That's just idiotic. Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

 

[james bond]

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.

so a fully formed, complex man with millions of cells being produced all at once, is more believable than a single cell being produced??
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??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evolution can't readily explain how an asexual single-cell turned into a sexual one.

Of course it can...where do you get this nonsense?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

Haha...man, you certainly are delusional. All of biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. It is the strongest scientific theory ever produced by mankind. It is supported by all of the evidence -- with more found each day -- and all of the evidence is mutually supportive.

That would explain why you deniers are relegated to the blogosphere and are not producing any science whatsoever.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.

 

[james bond]

. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

Haha...man, you certainly are delusional. All of biology only makes sense in the light of evolution. It is the strongest scientific theory ever produced by mankind. It is supported by all of the evidence -- with more found each day -- and all of the evidence is mutually supportive.

That would explain why you deniers are relegated to the blogosphere and are not producing any science whatsoever.

It just goes to show that you do not understand science and the tree of life. Even non-creation scientists rip Darwin over the tree of life. That is FACT.

Creation scientists were forced to go to their own websites because they were heavily discriminated against, i.e. they could lose their funding, jobs, tenure, promotion, etc. Another FACT.

We are discussing origins and evolution is wrong about origins. Because if they're right, then we would find life elsewhere besides planet earth. However, we can't find a microbe in our entire solar system. There are no aliens, either. Check out Fermi's Paradox.

And sure, I keep up. You didn't mention any examples or bring up other topics of discussion. Today, I found out that my evolution website from UC Berkeley opposes GMO and genetic engineering. While other scientists think GMO foods are safe. I'm on the side that GMO foods are not safe and should be labeled. I try ot eat organic and non-GMO when I can. However, I can't tell if some food is GMO, especially in restaurants. In the supermarket, more foods are labeled non-GMO or organic, so buy those instead of cereals, chips, canned foods, processed foods, packaged meals, etc. Farmed fish from Asian countries may not be good either. Depends where in Asia..

 

[james bond]

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.

How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months? Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory. It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory. Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old. If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded. Here's an example of their circular thinking. There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old. Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years. Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online. Then we'll see this change being made. It just fits their evo thinking. What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas? Then the results would be wrong. Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning. You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning. Just saying.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.

How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months? Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory. It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory. Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old. If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded. Here's an example of their circular thinking. There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old. Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years. Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online. Then we'll see this change being made. It just fits their evo thinking. What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas? Then the results would be wrong. Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning. You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning. Just saying.

A cacophony of gibberish. To try to equate anything today with what happened 3 billion years ago is utterly nonsensical. There was no oxygen, that took billions of years of microscopic organisms using photosynthesis, which itself took one or two billion years to evolve, to oxygenate the atmosphere.

This is why I hesitate joining threads like this on a message board, ignorance and opinion are not in the same galaxy as education and fact. But people on a message board think they are.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Even non-creation scientists rip Darwin over the tree of life. That is FACT.

No it isn't. Where DO you get ths nonsense?

Here is a tree of life that EVERY biologist agrees upon, save for some minor disputes:

And oh, here is another:

Creation scientists were forced to go to their own websites because they were heavily discriminated against,

haha, what a bunch of embarrassing nonsense. You REALLY are not getting this. Let's try again:

There is "science", and there is "not science". The "creation science" you made up is not science. This fully explains why people like you are relegated to screaming into echo chambers in the blogosphere.

We are discussing origins and evolution is wrong about origins.

You are embarrassing yourself. Evolution only speaks to how the diversity of species arose from the first life. It does not speak to how the first life arose.

Today, I found out that my evolution website from UC Berkeley opposes GMO and genetic engineering.

So what? The opinion of a blogger means exactly fuck all. The same goes for your 'creation science" frauds.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A cacophony of gibberish.

But, you must understand, this is like the Superbowl for denier losers like him. This, right here, is the absolute pinnacle that will be reached for a foolish creationist and his charlatan's tactics. They will never publish any science to support their nonsense, and will never gain any acknowledgment in any serious circles. ALL THEY HAVE is self-aggrandizing message board/blog masturbation like this. So, sit back and enjoy his "A-Game"...


....bhwahahahahahaaaa

 

[harmonica]

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??
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??

Harmonica, you need to understand something:

While you are bound by the rules of reason amd the burden of evidence, cultists like Bond007 do not burden themselves with such constraints. They can just say, "Because, magic!", and wash their hands of any logical conflict or contradictory evidence.

As such, you will never make a single inch of headway, as far as shifting the culstists' magical paradigms. They have the ultimate ."Get out of thinking" card, and you do not.

Creationists and I are using the rules of reason. When discussing origins, the facts are better explained by creation. One day, a person was walking along and found a new tree called an oak tree. Later the oak tree produced acorns. Or they found a hen and rooster and the hen later layed a fertilized egg. Creation science believes in a bush of life while evolutionists believe in a tree of life. The tree of life doesn't make much sense and is toppling.

...so you think a single cell being ''created'' is much more unbelievable than a complex man with millions of cells being created......no, creation makes 0 sense

 

[harmonica]

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.

How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months? Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory. It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory. Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old. If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded. Here's an example of their circular thinking. There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old. Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years. Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online. Then we'll see this change being made. It just fits their evo thinking. What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas? Then the results would be wrong. Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning. You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning. Just saying.

do you or do you not believe a fully formed man was created/just appeared/etc??
what is your theory?--for the last time

 

[james bond]

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.

How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months? Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory. It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory. Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old. If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded. Here's an example of their circular thinking. There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old. Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years. Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online. Then we'll see this change being made. It just fits their evo thinking. What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas? Then the results would be wrong. Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning. You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning. Just saying.

do you or do you not believe a fully formed man was created/just appeared/etc??
what is your theory?--for the last time

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans. We are like God in that he admires and appreciates perfection. If someone achieves perfection or near perfection in a fallen world, then it is broadcast throughout the world. Perfection is holiness.

 

[alang1216]

...so you think a single cell being ''created'' is much more unbelievable than a complex man with millions of cells being created......no, creation makes 0 sense

Go look up 'straw man' because this is one. Cells are the product of billions of years of evolution.

 

[harmonica]

Many times what seems 'logical' to ignorant people is not at all. Life evolving over 3.5 billion years seems far harder to believe than a magical Ginn blinking it into existence.

How can some life take 3.5 B years to evolve when we have superweeds that popped up in a matter of months? Most of evolution usee evidence to fit their theory. It should be the evidence being used to come up with a theory. Even their dating is based on assumptions that the atmosphere was certain way and the earth and universe being billions of years old. If any of those assumptions are wrong in taking radiometric measurements, then the billions and millions of years has to be discarded. Here's an example of their circular thinking. There are some scientists finding stuff out near the edge of the universe is more than 13.7 B years old. Thus, they have added two billion years to the age of the universe to 15.8 B years. Wait until the James Webb telescope comes online. Then we'll see this change being made. It just fits their evo thinking. What if the universe isn't the same throughout and there are curves and less dense and more dense areas? Then the results would be wrong. Moreover, IsaacNewton, your avatar committed God of the gaps reasoning. You sound like you commit atheist science of the gaps reasoning. Just saying.

do you or do you not believe a fully formed man was created/just appeared/etc??
what is your theory?--for the last time

If it wasn't made clear, then Adam and Eve were the first perfect humans. We are like God in that he admires and appreciates perfection. If someone achieves perfection or near perfection in a fallen world, then it is broadcast throughout the world. Perfection is holiness.

..so you do believe a fully formed man and woman just ''appeared''/were created
...you think a full formed complex human with millions of cells being created is more believable than 1 single cell being created
....so your theory is god just created man and not a single cell
if that is your belief fine--but don't try to say a single cell being created/appearing is less believable .....
...or the chance of a single cell being created is less than a creator creating a fully formed man/etc......it is not

 

[Syriusly]

Dogs can be bred for traits. We know dogs came from wolves. Wolves and dogs can still breed because they haven't diverged far enough. The biggest wolf can be bred with the smallest chihuahua. Obviously through artificial insemination. Keep it going for another million years and eventually, they won't be able to breed.
Instead of us doing the manipulation, the environment forces the adaptation. It's not a question of a new species developing, it's a single species diverging.
The transitions are all through nature. Why a donkey and a horse can mate, but they have diverged so far, the result is a mule which most of the time is sterile. Typical among species that have diverged. The offspring being mules in the sense of a lack of fertility.

Usually Republicans come up with "kind". A kind of cat can mate with another kind totally ignoring genetics and how chromosomes actually align.

And that is one of my questions.

if a Mule is sterile, how are we led to believe that mutations can lead to another species that can reprodue?

I'm mainly interested in real science, which is observation.

Have any new species been observed to have come about by the claimed scientific explanations?

'real science, which is observation'

In other words you are not interested in real science.

 

[Syriusly]

Well?

I get the general idea that certain "mutations" have to occur with one organism to change their species, but what about mating?

It happened long long ago when life was young. Life turned into all the life you see now but don’t expect any new species unless you have a billion years to wait and see

Ah yes, the unobserved theory.

I'll just take in on faith.

Authoritarian Irrationalism, the Creed of the 20th Century

Most observations are faith-based, believing that certain facts are relevant and jumping to conclusions based on those extraneous factors.

It was not long ago that we believed that maggots spontaneously generated from rotting meat.

And of course that belief came from observation......