Evidence for Evolution

[Ken]

Ah, yes, Darwin.

Who wrote the book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871).

Could we please consign this man’s views to the dustbin of history?

I'm sure you would be happy to learn that few if any modern scientists ever bother to cite Darwin in their work. Any more than modern astrophysicists cite Copernicus. After all, he was writing long before we even had even the slightest notion of modern molecular genetics. About the only people who ever cite Darwin today are creationists such as yourself. Outside of say some discussion of the history of science.

That is because modern evolutionary science is mostly about molecular genetics. And citing Darwin as an authority in molecular genetics would be like modern virologists citing 19th century scientists who worked before the discovery of the virus. But hey, if you want to upend modern evolutionary theory as it exists today and not 1859 then go for it. If you succeed you will be world famous in the field of biology and go down in history.

[NedFlanders]

Ah, yes, Darwin.

Who wrote the book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.

True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871).

Could we please consign this man’s views to the dustbin of history?

I'm sure you would be happy to learn that few if any modern scientists ever bother to cite Darwin in their work. Any more than modern astrophysicists cite Copernicus. After all, he was writing long before we even had even the slightest notion of modern molecular genetics. About the only people who ever cite Darwin today are creationists such as yourself. Outside of say some discussion of the history of science.

That is because modern evolutionary science is mostly about molecular genetics. And citing Darwin as an authority in molecular genetics would be like modern virologists citing 19th century scientists who worked before the discovery of the virus. But hey, if you want to upend modern evolutionary theory as it exists today and not 1859 then go for it. If you succeed you will be world famous in the field of biology and go down in history.

The idea of time solving all problems is one from an evolutionary mindset. So your points just keep defeating themselves from coming up with any evidence(as the title states we are looking for).

[Josh]

My point, Ken, is that the foundation of “evolution” is completely flawed. There hasn’t been any real evidence of molecular biology leading a primordial soup to somehow turn into human beings.

[temporal1]

Natural selection does not explain the teleology inherent in all life forms to survive and to propagate its species in the first place. This introduces an independent factor into evolution not explained by natural selection alone.

The Giraffe’s neck is partly explained by its choice in accordance with its will to survive (to eat) so that in addition to a mindless purposeless process called natural selection the mindful purpose of the Giraffe enters into the equation.

That mindful choice (even if not conscious, just an instinct, in the Giraffe) is not explained by natural selection, just taken for granted.

“Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist; he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.”
—J.B.S. Haldane

There can be no substitution for the God-created male human brain.

[temporal1]

.. the foundation of “evolution” is completely flawed.
There hasn’t been any real evidence of molecular biology leading a primordial soup to somehow turn into human beings.

i enjoy these discussions, i’m not at all afraid of science, or even speculation, fantasies, human reasoning.
Because, i know God is greater-than, He has always been, He will remain. Science proves God, it’s an exquisite thing.

Science, by definition, runs behind God. Science requires evidence, it doesn’t create, it only attempts to understand creation.
Every discovery supports anew The Creator. It’s awe-inspiring, for those who have the wherewithal to accept Truth.

What’s missing? To be blessed by the Holy Spirit. Without, “the wheels on the bus go round+round.”
Prayers for blessing of the Holy Spirit.

[Martin]

Interesting thread.

From the "Science Times" of the NYT, dated December 12, 2023

"According to the fossil record, geology and evolution have been engaged in a dance for 3.8 billion years, since our planet was only 700 million years old. It was then that the first single celled creatures appeared, perhaps in undersea volcanic vents, feasting on the chemical energy around them.

The population of cells has been growing exponentially ever since, even through geological disasters and extinction events, which opened up new avenues of evolution.

The seeds for animal life were sown sometime in the dim past when some bacterium learned to use sunlight to split water molecules and produce oxygen and sugar. By 2.4 billion years ago, with photosynthesis well established, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise dramatically. The Great Oxidation Event 'was clearly the biggest event in the history of the biosphere,' said Peter Ward, a paleontologist from the University of Washington.

Without photosynthesis, the rest of creation would have little to eat. But it is just one strand in a web of geological feedback loops by which weather, oceans, microbes and volcanoes conspire to keep the globe basically stable and warm and allow life to grow."

My favorite word in this article is "conspire".

[Soloist]

Interesting thread.

From the "Science Times" of the NYT, dated December 12, 2023

"According to the fossil record, geology and evolution have been engaged in a dance for 3.8 billion years, since our planet was only 700 million years old. It was then that the first single celled creatures appeared, perhaps in undersea volcanic vents, feasting on the chemical energy around them.

The population of cells has been growing exponentially ever since, even through geological disasters and extinction events, which opened up new avenues of evolution.

The seeds for animal life were sown sometime in the dim past when some bacterium learned to use sunlight to split water molecules and produce oxygen and sugar. By 2.4 billion years ago, with photosynthesis well established, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise dramatically. The Great Oxidation Event 'was clearly the biggest event in the history of the biosphere,' said Peter Ward, a paleontologist from the University of Washington.

Without photosynthesis, the rest of creation would have little to eat. But it is just one strand in a web of geological feedback loops by which weather, oceans, microbes and volcanoes conspire to keep the globe basically stable and warm and allow life to grow."

My favorite word in this article is "conspire".

Lot of ideas there with no evidence. I wonder why they teach things that have no evidence.

[ken_sylvania]

Interesting thread.

From the "Science Times" of the NYT, dated December 12, 2023

"According to the fossil record, geology and evolution have been engaged in a dance for 3.8 billion years, since our planet was only 700 million years old. It was then that the first single celled creatures appeared, perhaps in undersea volcanic vents, feasting on the chemical energy around them.

The population of cells has been growing exponentially ever since, even through geological disasters and extinction events, which opened up new avenues of evolution.

The seeds for animal life were sown sometime in the dim past when some bacterium learned to use sunlight to split water molecules and produce oxygen and sugar. By 2.4 billion years ago, with photosynthesis well established, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise dramatically. The Great Oxidation Event 'was clearly the biggest event in the history of the biosphere,' said Peter Ward, a paleontologist from the University of Washington.

Without photosynthesis, the rest of creation would have little to eat. But it is just one strand in a web of geological feedback loops by which weather, oceans, microbes and volcanoes conspire to keep the globe basically stable and warm and allow life to grow."

My favorite word in this article is "conspire".

Lot of ideas there with no evidence. I wonder why they teach things that have no evidence.

It's a time-honored tradition dating at least back to the days before Francesco Redi, when some biologists thought that some simpler forms of lfe could arise by spontaneous generation from inanimate matter.

[Martin]

Interesting thread.

From the "Science Times" of the NYT, dated December 12, 2023

"According to the fossil record, geology and evolution have been engaged in a dance for 3.8 billion years, since our planet was only 700 million years old. It was then that the first single celled creatures appeared, perhaps in undersea volcanic vents, feasting on the chemical energy around them.

The population of cells has been growing exponentially ever since, even through geological disasters and extinction events, which opened up new avenues of evolution.

The seeds for animal life were sown sometime in the dim past when some bacterium learned to use sunlight to split water molecules and produce oxygen and sugar. By 2.4 billion years ago, with photosynthesis well established, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise dramatically. The Great Oxidation Event 'was clearly the biggest event in the history of the biosphere,' said Peter Ward, a paleontologist from the University of Washington.

Without photosynthesis, the rest of creation would have little to eat. But it is just one strand in a web of geological feedback loops by which weather, oceans, microbes and volcanoes conspire to keep the globe basically stable and warm and allow life to grow."

My favorite word in this article is "conspire".

Lot of ideas there with no evidence. I wonder why they teach things that have no evidence.

The evidence is in "undersea volcanic vents", lol.

[Ken]

Interesting thread.

From the "Science Times" of the NYT, dated December 12, 2023

"According to the fossil record, geology and evolution have been engaged in a dance for 3.8 billion years, since our planet was only 700 million years old. It was then that the first single celled creatures appeared, perhaps in undersea volcanic vents, feasting on the chemical energy around them.

The population of cells has been growing exponentially ever since, even through geological disasters and extinction events, which opened up new avenues of evolution.

The seeds for animal life were sown sometime in the dim past when some bacterium learned to use sunlight to split water molecules and produce oxygen and sugar. By 2.4 billion years ago, with photosynthesis well established, the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere began to rise dramatically. The Great Oxidation Event 'was clearly the biggest event in the history of the biosphere,' said Peter Ward, a paleontologist from the University of Washington.

Without photosynthesis, the rest of creation would have little to eat. But it is just one strand in a web of geological feedback loops by which weather, oceans, microbes and volcanoes conspire to keep the globe basically stable and warm and allow life to grow."

My favorite word in this article is "conspire".

Lot of ideas there with no evidence. I wonder why they teach things that have no evidence.

Actually there is an immense amount of evidence.

Take the oxidation event referred to above. Which was actually a period lasting millions of years. The chemical composition of the oldest rocks on earth suggest that there was very little free oxygen in the earth's atmosphere and vastly more carbon dioxide and methane. We also know from the composition of such rocks that the early oceans were rich in iron. Iron is one of the most abundant elements in the earth's crust and most soluble in water so it would have been an abundant mineral in the early oceans due to erosion.

Iron oxidizes very easily in the presence of oxygen as anyone who has ever seen rust knows quite well. Without protection, raw iron and steel will begin to rust almost overnight. And rust (which is iron oxide formed by the reaction of iron, oxygen, and water) is far less soluble than free iron ions. Which means that if iron oxide forms from the reaction of oxygen and dissolved iron in sea water it will form solid deposits and settle to the bottom. So what do we see everywhere around the world during the time period of the great oxidation event when the first photosynthetic bacteria began to convert carbon dioxide into O2? We see the same identical layers of red iron oxide across the globe in ancient layers of sedimentary rock. It is an exact fossil footprint of this event.



When the first photosynthetic organisms in the world's oceans began to produce oxygen it would have mostly been consumed by reacting with iron. And it would have taken millions of years for the process to have used up all the available iron dissolved in the oceans before the surplus oxygen could have started to accumulate in the earth's atmosphere. And that entire process would have resulted in banded layers of iron deposits in all the sedimentary rocks formed at that time around the world.

Now as with all science, it is more complicated than I just described. But to say there is no evidence is patently wrong. There is an immense amount of information, observations, and data that have been collected and they all point in this direction. Have scientists used time machines to go back 2.5 billion years and take air and water samples? No, of course not. But that is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Clues are all around us. And science is about finding and interpreting the clues that we do have.

Willful ignorance by conservative Christians is not a good look and I expect it is partly why interest in Christianity is falling off so dramatically among the young.