What will replace evolution. (Page 8)

Blackshoes: No matter what answers are given to you, You are not allowed to overcome your ignorance as long as you remain willfully blind to science, the truth, the evidence, and the facts.

Abiogenesis Is naturalistically Impossible
Macroevolution remains implausible as long as no genetic avenue has been found to overcome the genetic limitation of a kind
Your own evolutionary research with bacteria and genetics has proven these facts countless times!

bonzono: lol
your doctor disagress with you.
and you agree with your doctor.

BS. are you getting it yet?
No matte how many thousands of pages you cutpaste the same intellectually incompetent rubbish, over and over.....
you STILL take advice from your doctor.


and while you do that hun, you've already lost - you've lost your own argument. I dont have to do a single thing. You never even believed yourself in the first place.

my goodness but you're stupid.

Blackshoes: Bonz, I generally don't respond to such nonsense, Yet, you really haven't a clue

ghostgeek: Come on Blackshoes, tell us why your God hates every one of his creations? Don't be shy; spill the beans.

Blackshoes: It's pointless to respond to such nonsense Ghost ! You should know better

Bonz is clueless! You have no excuse, you are far from clueless and far too intelligent to ask such a nonsensical question

ghostgeek: Blackshoes, would you go up to an alligator and stroke its nose? Or would you keep your distance because you might wonder if you'd become the gator's next meal?

Blackshoes: Again your perspective? If your friend had a lion and you trusted your friend? Would you pet the lion if he told you to?

ghostgeek: Knowing that God had created the feline, no I wouldn't!

ghostgeek: The earth is one vast food chain. How can a loving God have created such a nightmare?

Blackshoes: God's creation was originally perfect ! It was ruined by the free will of satan and humans not listening to God

ghostgeek: So is not listening to God a sign that the Creation had a flaw to it?

Blackshoes: Nope Humans were perfect until we choose to become imperfect and suffer the consequences of our actions as did the universe and all things suffered as a result of our action

ghostgeek: Marvelous thinking, Blackshoes. Something that was perfect just ups and decides it's boring being perfect and it would much rather be imperfect. Yes that makes complete sense, to an idiot.

Blackshoes: OK You talk to God about it when you kneel before him on Judgement day! As for me, I'll just accept the facts and realities rather than think myself smarter and wiser than all that I see

ghostgeek: Facts? You can point to some, can you?

Blackshoes: I 'VE ALREADY POINTED YOU IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION! ITS UP TO YOU TO FOLLOW JESUS AND BE SAVED.

I'm nobody! All I've done is tell you the truth. The evidence is everywhere.
LIFE AND THE UNIVERSE DIDN'T CREATE ITSELF Only a fool would believe nothing created everything

ghostgeek: Oh right, so God just happened to be hanging around for ever and a day, was he? Try explaining that to your shrink when you next meet him.

GeraldTheGnumbnut: "Truth"

Blackshoes:

GeraldTheGnumbnut:

Blackshoes: Common descent

Phylogenetic Tree
Common descent is a principle of Darwinism which holds that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. Darwin's theory of descent with modification led inexorably to this conclusion as is illustrated in the following quote from Prentice Hall Biology (2008). The theory draws support from homology (physical similarities), embryology (developmental similarities), and the geographic distribution of organisms.

“ Descent with modification also implies that all living organisms are related to one another. Look back in time, and you will find common ancestors shared by tigers, panthers, and cheetahs. Look farther back, and you will find ancestors that these felines share with horses, dogs, and bats. Farther back still are the common ancestors of mammals, birds, alligators, and fishes. If we look far enough back, the logic concludes, we could find the common ancestors of all living things. This is the principle known as common descent.[1] ”
By contrast, creationists believe that God created many kinds of organisms, and that innumerable species developed from those original kinds through microevolution via inherent genetic variability and natural selection. That tigers, panthers, and cheetahs share a common ancestor is a view accepted by most young earth creationists. However, the belief that biological evolution supports that these felines share ancestors with horses, dogs, and bats is a point where evolutionists and most creationists part ways.

Contents
1 Support
1.1 Homology
1.2 Embryology
2 Challenges
2.1 Tree of life
2.2 Abiogenesis
2.3 Morphological gaps in the fossil record
2.4 Falsifiability
3 History
4 References
5 External links
Support
Homology
Main Article: Homology
Belief in common descent is largely derived from the existence of homologous structures shared by many forms of life. Homologies may include structural (morphological) components, such as the forelimbs, which illustrate a similarity of construction overall, but are yet unique in other ways, providing varied functions. Cellular and molecular similarities are also considered to be derived from a common ancestor and therefore homologous, as in the existence of common organelles in eukaryotes, and nucleic acid (DNA/RNA) as the universal genetic code. Such homologies (similarities) are used as one of the main proofs for macroevolution and the common descent of all life on Earth.

“ By Darwin's time, researchers had noticed striking anatomical similarities among the body parts of animals with backbones. For example, the limbs of reptiles, birds, and mammals—arms, wings, legs, and flippers—vary greatly in form and function. Yet, they are all constructed from the same basic bones,... Homologous structures provide strong evidence that all four-limbed vertebrates have descended, with modifications, from common ancestors.[2] ”
Based on these observed similarities, evolutionists infer that all life is related through one original life form that generated naturally through abiogenesis. Creationists on the other hand infer that life and the natural laws that sustain it were designed by a common Creator, namely God, Who supernaturally created many original kinds of animals. It is important to note that creationists do not reject fully the idea of common descent, only its ultimate evolutionary conclusion.

Embryology
Main Article: Embryology
Since the time Darwin published The Origin of Species, embryology has been used to support common descent. In fact, Darwin referred to embryological homology as the strongest single class of facts that existed to support his theories. A theory later put forth by Ernst Haeckel, known as the biogenetic law, asserted that the evolutionary history of an organism was recapped during embryo development. Although the biogenetic law is now discredited, in recent years, embryology has reemerged as a tool used by evolutionary biologists that attempt to establish phylogenetic relationships by identifying developmental similarities between taxonomic groups. Evolutionary developmental biology is a merging of developmental biology and evolutionary biology that is commonly known as "evo-devo".

Challenges
Challenges to the theory of common descent are numerous. It is especially important to realize that modern evolutionists are now refining their original theory of common descent to one that now includes more original life forms at the beginning.[3] They have argued against a single-celled evolution and thus posit the original existence of no less than three "loosely constructed cellular organizations."[4]

Tree of life

Charles Darwin's notebook showing sketch of a phylogenetic tree.
Charles Darwin's "tree of life" is not born out in scientific observation. This is concluded through more modern research, on example of such coming from the Proceedings for the National Academy of Science (PNAS). The research found that "there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy" and that "the only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree."[5]

There are what are called evolutionary "bushes," but according to Public Library of Science (PLoS) research, these bushes do not support the conclusion of a single cause of a complete tree of life as proposed by Darwin.[6]

Abiogenesis
Main Article: Abiogenesis
The asserted improbability and impossibility of this completely naturalistic mechanism is a severe problem for modern evolutionists. Abiogenesis is the spontaneous appearance of the first, self-replicating protocell which can be argued has neither been observed nor comprehensively explained.

Morphological gaps in the fossil record
Main Article: transitional form
Differences in morphology, or "gaps in the fossil record," exist, across which it is argued there is no fossil evidence of transitional forms. For example these gaps are glaring when the context between reptiles and mammals, reptiles and birds, or apes and men is understood.

Falsifiability
Because of the absence of substantial hard evidence to support belief in common ancestry, creationists and even some evolutionists acknowledge that evolution is a philosophical belief, not scientific in essence. Evolution is referred to as a fact without providing sufficient explanation for the means. The assertions made by evolutionists are often not falsifiable and cannot be observed in nature or tested by experimentation. It therefore, falls outside the boundaries of the scientific method.[7]

History

Phylogenetic Tree
Common ancestry is an ancient idea, articulated by many pagan philosophers throughout history. In Europe, it fell from prominence when Christianity was dominant, but regained popularity in the 19th century, with secularization. It is an ancient idea, held by ancient pagan philosophers such as Anaximander as early as the 7th century BC, and returning to popularity in 19th century Europe.

Plutarch, Symposiacs, Book viii, question viii: Anaximander founded the first school of Greek philosophy and lived circa 610-546 BC.
“ Anaximander says that fish and men were not produced in the same substances, but that men were first produced in fishes, and, when they were grown up and able to help themselves, were thrown out, and so lived upon the land. Therefore, as the fire devours its parents, that is, the matter out of which it was first kindled, so Anaximander, asserting that fish were our common parents, condemneth our feeding on them. ”
Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis (1698-1759), Vénus Physique.
“ Could one not say that, in the fortuitous combinations of the productions of nature, as there must be some characterized by a certain relation of fitness which are able to subsist, it is not to be wondered at that this fitness is present in all the species that are currently in existence? Chance, one would say, produced an innumerable multitude of individuals; a small number found themselves constructed in such a manner that the parts of the animal were able to satisfy its needs; in another infinitely greater number, there was neither fitness nor order: all of these latter have perished. Animals lacking a mouth could not live; others lacking reproductive organs could not perpetuate themselves... The species we see today are but the smallest part of what blind destiny has produced... ”
The Temple of Nature in 1802.

ghostgeek: If there was a common Creator why should we presume it was God, a supernatural entity mentioned only in one old book?

Blackshoes: Because only one came back from the dead! All the other faiths follow the dead. Christians follow the living christ!
If you wanted to know what happen in the past", isn't always better to speak to the one that was there.

ghostgeek: Mmm, yes, so we know for a fact that Jesus woke up in his tomb, stretched and decided to go for a walk around? Right, so where in the original edition of Mark does it categorically say this? This, the first Gospel, says only that a young man told the visiting women that Jesus had done a runner back to Galilee. That man may have been lying or mistaken, we just don't know.

Blackshoes:
You asked a question I tell you the truth and you make excuses and find fault with my knowledge and answer. Find out for yourself. Eternity is a Long Long Long time to have screwed yourself with ignorance and assumptions, believing you know more than those that were there and witness the truth.

The bottom line is you'll see soon enough. All your rejection and denials of the science the facts and the truth, are your problem, not mine.

Nothing can make something, and abiogenesis is naturalistically impossible
Macroevolution is the faith-based belief that has no observable or genetic verification
Science is clear as day to anyone that has enough sense to understand real science and overcome the media and academic hype and their biased, programming, conditioning, presuppositions, or whatever it is that blinds them from simple common sense.



Psalm 139:13-14

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.