quote:In any event, please tell me what you think the ToE is.
ToE says [as opposed what it does not say], briefly in headings:
1. A process of change. 2. Changes of life forms. 3. The life forms are deivided in groups [speceis], according to common, base traits. 4. The changes are said to occur via speciation [branching in groups]; survival of the fittest [many don't make it, same with the drama of sperm cells, allowing only one fit to succeed]; and Adaptation [learning or acquiring means to prevail environmental conditions]. 5. The said changes occur at the micro level, via genes in the dna, and these pass on data [a program], which keeps enlarging its memory over successive generations and time - accumulating signs of good and bad actions, accumulatively. Here, a gene will propell instructions, and the host acts on these impulses - it fails till it succeeds, and when a crevice of elevation is found, it is said to evolve into a higher, more hardy life - this is termed as a mutation - while it helps a life form to progress to a new, higher level, it also destroys the original host form. The micro process has been traced to what is called a retro-virus, which, before perishing away, lodged an implant in a dna's gene, and this was passed on, even as the retro did not survive. 6. While Darwin himself never said all life forms emerge from one molecule, or that there is cross-sepciation, this is the inferred premise, which has been expanded and accepted by the faculty called ToE.
What Darwin or ToE does not say:
1. How life originally began; thus evolution is a process, picked up in mid-point of a process, and refers only to post original life emergence; namely is illustrates a process which has already began. This is not a lacking, because true origins of all things are unknown generally. However, we find a list of pre-life occurences in the genesis morde of evolution, namely anticipating life, and includes the seperation of the elements in critical modes, eg. seperation of water and land, light and darkness, male and female; for sure, life could not have emerged without these precedent events, despite all of the factors nominated in ToE.
2. ToE does not account for the emergence of male/female distinctions. A counter to it is that the origin of life was a dual-gendered entity, which became seperated later [Genesis]. This is a valid premise, as opposed to a male appearing and then a female being found with the exact, recipient traits in a sync mode: the odds for such are not plausable.
3. TE does not account for speech being a unique trait, one which makes modern humans a distinct species. Thus ToE focuses only on skeletal and biological imprints; as opposed to what else, one may ask here. While speech is seen by evolutionists as a mere different form of communication, this does not factor in the correct division of differentials, namely there are millions of communication modes - but only one which is speech. Here, speech has proven itself to be a difference in kind than degree, and no other life form has evolved to attain speech, despite the benefits of time and greater audio dexterity.
4. ToE does not successfully prove its cross speciation, aside from very doubtful and limited lab deconstructionism. Namely, it does not evidence itself in cross-speciation transit points in our midst, citing that this is because it is a very slow pace and takes millions of years. But this is a mathematical glitch: the time factor has no impact when the process is said to be 'on-going', which means w/o pause. This says, every second of time must evidence speciation, in our midst, and upon all places of the planet.
5. The first premise of evolution was recorded in genesis, as well as the first introduction of survival of the fittest, speciation and adaptation: these are cushioned in latent biblespeak, but are evident when read carefully, and was assuredly the means which sparked Darwin's evolution. Lets examine the differences between the two forms of evolution, as a means of understanding what evolution is, within these differences.
Differences between Darwinian and genesis Evolution.
1. Species in ToE are based on skeletal traits, and sub-devided into further sub-groups with common traits within that basic group. These are referred to as species. In genesis also, the life forms are devided in groups, and these are referred to as a 'KIND'. The genesis groupings are based on: immobile, sprouting life form [vegetation]; water based [fish]; air-borne [fowl]; land based [animal] and human. Within these groups, Genesis also caters to micro life forms such as bacteria and virues [swarms; dust], mammals, insects and creepy crawleys. Genesis also caters to a form of speciation, but limits this to a 'kind', namely a fish does not become an animal; a fruit tree does not become a bird; etc. Darwin contradicts genesis here by positing fossil imprints which signify a specie cross-changed from a previous one, bu pointing to certain fossil imprints which fit, like pieces of a jigsaw. However, other reasons can apply aside from cross-speciation here, and there is no evidential track record of a half/bird/half zebra [noting that the time factor does not apply in an on-going process]. In contrast, Genesis allows a saber tiger to evolve into a cat [feline sub-group of animals] - because they belong to the same 'kind' [land based]. There are arguements for and against here - it is by no means conclusive for ToE: the maths, when properly applied, negates ToE, which relies on the time factor.
2. The other factor of differential between these two modes of evolution refers to the transmission mode. Genesis says the seed factor is adequate to transmit all data, including skeletal and dna imprints, requiring no other assistance from any other source or one which goes back millions of years. Here, the seed factor, like speech, is totally disregarded by Darwin. But we have the situation whereby Genesis' mode can function without ToE's time factor, while ToE cannot subsist w/o the seed factor - and this is the proof ToE must overcome to prevail itself - namely it must evidence its various theories without the seed factor. This seed factor, and the speech factor, poses fundamental threats to ToE.
My view: I see the minutae process breakdowns of Darwin as a great knowledge base and contribution for science, but I see this as applying only to sub-groups. I also favour, via my own science based assessment, that Genesis' seed factor, dual-gendered original life forms, speech allocation for a seperate group, and its limitations to cross-speciation - as superios and more plausable than ToE.
All that I said was correct - w/o the jargon. Millions of efforts fail, millions of times. When one succeeds, just like one in a billion sperm cells aspiring to connect with an egg, this starts the evolution thread. The stray success is what we call a mutation. Of coz, I am simply repeating what ToE says, which is not to say I agree with all of it - there is also much jargon in the ToE religion, which in recent years is being disputed by numerous scientists and biologists.
I listed two of the biggest problems confronting ToE: it has to prove that speech is more than 6000 years old - no excuses available anymore; it has to re-define what it means by an 'on-going' processs - this makes the time factor irrelevent. One cannot hide behind unprovable scenarios forever.
The highest species is definitely mentioned by a religious document, the same one which introduced evolution, and which placed humans a seperate category, and the final life from; this is vindicated w/o any confusion, and no need to wait millions of years or check it out in a lab. That's real science. This upsets many - but all religions compete, including ToE, which has become absolutely talibanic.
No, not any place. You may be satisfied with why we have to wait millions of years to witness transit evidences of speciation, in 'open' form and pervasively, when a process is said to be 'on-going', but my maths rejects it.
The time factor is irrelevent even if a partial measure of speciation begins, and even if this initial process takes 300 million years; because 300 million years ago plus 1 second - the on-going process continues pervasively, and we should witness speciation every second. Do the maths again.
ToE also dismisses the critical preparation factors of the elements which anticipates life. I expect a whole measure of corrections to be forthcoming by new brave scientists not worried by career blackmail.
Its very much like a religion, much of the foundation is one of 'belief'; there is no proof in science for ex nehilo, or a complexity emerging from random, nor a process w/o a causation factor. These are akin to religious premises.
The demand for a name older than 6000 as a confirmation, is hardly a religious factor. We have no history per se of modern humans before this date. A name does not even require writings - it can be recalled same as a folksong or a recipe. It is going to look very strange that speech emergence only alligns with religion, but not science: and you ask me if I'm shamed? If its not akin to a religion, why do you accept it so freely, when no evidence exists!
No evidence - that article only makes leaps of imaginative plots. The evidence tended for 5000 years pre-sumerian is laughable. Give a simple name more than 6000 instead` - the factor evidencing speech and language. This is recallable, and is not reliant on writings. It is also not plausable that an unrecorded 5000 year period, has no transit imprints in that region.
In fact, there is no evidence of history per se prior to 6000, and all alledged evidences are based on flimsy premises. Think of population and mental prowess cencus marks along the way: these only allign with a 6000 year verifiable conclusion. It is too vital an issue to accept anything but firm, scientific hard proof, and not even one or two stray examples.
As yet, there is no acceptable evidence of speech endowed humans prior to 6000. I am not saying anything other than that, nor am I negating any older prototype humans.
No history means no modern human imprints, no monuments, wars, nations, kings, folksongs, recipies and no 'NAMES' - the mark of a modern human. Alledged fire places, beads, cave stractchings, mass burials, agriculture, etc - do not contribute anything whatsoever to this factor.
For me, it is a mystery this was signified in Genesis with a dating specific to the year - whether this be partially or fully vindicated, still remains mysterious factor for humanity. It means 'something' yet to be defined scientifically occured on this planet close to 6000 years ago.
No good. We can have place names for rocks on other galaxies too. Unless these names existed prior to 6000 years, and how does one evidence that?
Eridu (or Eridug, modern Tell Abu Shahrain, Iraq) was the earliest city in southern Mesopotamia, founded ca. 5400 BC.
No good. Too close, and C14 datings are not accurate to small time margins. If anything, that fig of a 400 year variation only affirms what Genesis says. Mesopotamia, which included Babylon, is already given as the first civilization, predating ancient Egypt.
IamJoseph writes: It is also not plausable that an unrecorded 5000 year period, has no transit imprints in that region.
Well I'm sorry, I confess I have no idea what this sentance means if you want something not reliant on writing.
IOW, if you are claiming modern human history dated to 10K years [some 4000 before the Genesis dating for human speech endowed history] there has to be a gradual, accumulating thread of evidences with respect populations and mental prowess advancements, say every 100 years.
This begs the question: why are you on this site? You seem to show talent only in refusing to see what other wiser people have tried really, really hard to show you.
The reverse is the case. I am agreeing with Genesis' evidenced and vindicated writings, after examing and considering all things, while others are refusing it, with no plausable counter evidence of refutation - only because it is told us by alledged wise men. If it is alledged, for example, that Australian aboriginals are 60K years old, I ask for evidence of their population figures [namely, why is it not in the trillions], and their mental prowess imprints within that period. Is that not a legitimate view?
So I ask you: if you are not here to learn or debate, what are you here for?
I am here to learn and debate. Which is different from accepting anything which does not make any sense but accepted by others. there are anomolies in the status quo, and a growing admission and realisation of it, but it has come to a stage that half the scientific community debates in a mode akin to a fundamental religious sect - attacking anyone one who disputes even on legitimate grounds.
My bad for not knowing about the 300 post limits; normally, if a thread extends, it is a mark of interest. Now I have debated the variances of evolution, with legitimate arguements, as well as the novel, casino maths assumption anything exists w/o a centre or boundary, specifically - I have debated against the sole and singular example tended, namely a 'surface'; it is doubtful even if a surface can be submitted as evidence in this regard, yet I have shown even such an example fails when examined.
Re: To learn or debate? to get the facts straight.
While there is no problem with he term 'change', it can also be easily manipulated to incline with a preferred conclusion. That everything is subject to change is not possible to dispute. The evidence needed, that all life emerged from a randomity and became a complexity [entropy], is also not disputed; both these factors are introduced in the opening two verses of genesis, which is followed by the first recording of evolution [the chronological emergence of life forms].
There are agreements and differences in evolution according to Genesis and ToE. The standout differentials are inclined with Genesis being correct. But there is an undeniable phenomenon in neo science to automatically counter the differentials with what I call casino science and maths, but accepted by everyone - as if there are no brick walls and unacceptable anomolies at the conclusion of those premises.
I gave examples of such phenomenons as reciprocity, intergration and irrevocable logical evidences of an outside triggering mechanism being applicable in a finite universe - these have not even been addressed here.
Here you have only shown that you understand a thread of factors portrayed in scientific process. Nothing more, and definitely not evidencing its legitimacy. One can easily present what is percieved as a change, and that it appears to 'fit' another change elsewhere, as with a jigsaw puzzle's pieces, then positing this as the only evidence to establish numerous other factors.
But this has to ultimately be evidenced outside of a deconstructionist lab test. Now we know that this evidence of evolutionary 'change' is based on a time factor, and what is presented is millions of years being applicable, and that it is otherwise too slow to be seen. This is casino logic, and here's why.
The process of evolution is said to be an 'on-going' process, never ceasing. Do you even know what that means, or did you just fly over that term faster than a speeding bullet? FYI, in an on-going process, the time factor is irrelevent. Guess why, brainiac!
I doubt that most evolutionists even understand evolution or the premise of change. No one knows why or how a decision is made for a flower to become red or yellow, or a banana to assume its casing, why one life form becomes a zebra and one a crocodile. No - it is not because of adaptation: this would make all follow one path - the best and safest one. Instead, it only alligns with the provisions of genesis, which first introduced evolution: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND'. This says the decision to become a zebra or a flower is dependent on the seed programe, which we have come to identify as genes in the dna. But there is a problem with the latter decision.
Since a gene habours variant data, each offspring being different, it inclines not with ToE but with genesis. Example. A child is said to be the offspring of its parents; but ToE is saying, a child is the offspring of a retro virus data lodged in a bone marror of another life form, but takes turns and twists and then becomes the parent - after millions of years - and never mind how that retro virus even emerged in the first place on its own.
We can prove the offspring being from the parents; we cannot prove the ToE - even when allowing millions of years to evidence this. We know that modern humans are recent and the final life forms. We know that no other life form has emulated humans via adaptation to become of the same brain ratio - despite the advantage of time. An anomoly?
And if this data is vested in a program in the seed - you are talking Genesis' edition of evolution, and a negation of a host of ToE factors. This is proven by ToE not being able to sustain its premises without the seed factor - and it cannot. Contrastingly, the seed factor can evidence its claims of all transmissions of data, including skeletal and dna. Here, both cannot be right.