TV Patrol feature on human evolution slammed for not recognizing Adam and Eve

**jut703** · February 28th, 2016 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by ClaNker

A step in the right direction but still a blank wall.

Quoting the exact same article:

The author himself accepts the view that the RNA world is the best materialistic model for the origin of life.

I'm not saying that RNA world is at the point where its indisputable, but the general consensus of the scientific community is that it's the closest thing we've got to a conclusive explanation.

Perhaps a few more decades and we'll find out whether there'll be further proof to support the theory, or a game-changing flaw to completely debunk it.

The argument is that RNA world is too complicated and improbable, but God snapping his fingers and creating life is just as improbable with absolutely no proof to show for it, save for the lack of conclusive proof of all other models.

If all scientists across history stopped and just said, "ah well, this is probably where God's magic comes into play", we probably wouldn't have gotten to where we are now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**jut703** · February 28th, 2016 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by ClaNker

We've been cross breeding dog for ages. Where's your proof that Natural Selection and Random Mutation happened on a macro-scale.

I've given you the well-documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs (in the previous page, which you seem to have conveniently skipped).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ClaNker** · February 28th, 2016 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

Quoting the exact same article:

I'm not saying that RNA world is at the point where its indisputable, but the general consensus of the scientific community is that it's the closest thing we've got to a conclusive explanation.

Perhaps a few more decades and we'll find out whether there'll be further proof to support the theory, or a game-changing flaw to completely debunk it.

The argument is that RNA world is too complicated and improbable, but God snapping his fingers and creating life is just as improbable with absolutely no proof to show for it, save for the lack of conclusive proof of all other models.

If all scientists across history stopped and just said, "ah well, this is probably where God's magic comes into play", we probably wouldn't have gotten to where we are now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here we go we go with the God argument again. Where in the world did I mentioned that in this thread?

You're evolution science claims it has the answer to everything, while the ID group says otherwise.

RNA world? Too complex to be of any good, that's why they're shifting to Pre-RNA.

**ClaNker** · February 28th, 2016 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

I've given you the well-documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs (in the previous page, which you seem to have conveniently skipped).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs? Is that a proven science, or just a Darwinist claiming it to be a fact?

Scientific proof. Where is it? And when I say scientific proof, it must me testable.

**jut703** · February 28th, 2016 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by ClaNker

Here we go we go with the God argument again. Where in the world did I mentioned that in this thread?

You're evolution science claims it has the answer to everything, while the ID group says otherwise.

RNA world? Too complex to be of any good, that's why they're shifting to Pre-RNA.

Even without naming gods, ID still presents a false dichotomy - because current evolution theories are allegedly of irreducible complexity, it must therefore be caused by an intelligent designer.

Evolutionists have never claimed to have the answer to everything. Any scientist actually who claims such, misses the big point of the scientific method. I've always maintained that science is a journey. The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

On the other hand, ID proponents who ascribe everything to intelligent design lead to complacency. I'm sure many centuries back, people thought that lightning bolts were irreducibly complex, and probably thought that it occurs from intelligent cause. If they stopped at that, they probably wouldn't have discovered electrical charges in clouds.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**jut703** · February 28th, 2016 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by ClaNker

Documented evolution of birds from dinosaurs? Is that a proven science, or just a Darwinist claiming it to be a fact?

Scientific proof. Where is it? And when I say scientific proof, it must me testable.

Of course you can't test a process that takes millions of years. But fossil and biological evidence all point to it being true.

The evolution of birds from dinosaurs has already achieved scientific consensus. But I guess you're smarter than the scientific community. Just as there are people who'd never see Duterte as anything but a messiah, there are some people that just won't believe natural selection in macroevolution.

I wonder though, if not from dinosaurs, where exactly do you think birds came from?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ClaNker** · February 28th, 2016 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

Even without naming gods, ID still presents a false dichotomy - because current evolution theories are allegedly of irreducible complexity, it must therefore be caused by an intelligent designer.

Evolutionists have never claimed to have the answer to everything. Any scientist actually who claims such, misses the big point of the scientific method. I've always maintained that science is a journey. The more you know, the more you know you don't know.

On the other hand, ID proponents who ascribe everything to intelligent design lead to complacency. I'm sure many centuries back, people thought that lightning bolts were irreducibly complex, and probably thought that it occurs from intelligent cause. If they stopped at that, they probably wouldn't have discovered electrical charges in clouds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Where in this thread did I mentioned God? You're the one who keeps bringing that in here.

Well Neo-Darwinian should have shut them up already. Problem is even the RNA world hypothesis poses more problem than answer.

Evolutionist never claimed to the answer to everything? Haeckel even have to fake his drawings on embryos to support Darwin's evolution.

Electrical charges in the clouds? That's funny because Benjamin Franklin comes into mind and his Creed. Do you really think people who believe in deity are a bunch of idiots?

**ClaNker** · February 28th, 2016 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

Of course you can't test a process that takes millions of years. But fossil and biological evidence all point to it being true.

The evolution of birds from dinosaurs has already achieved scientific consensus. But I guess you're smarter than the scientific community. Just as there are people who'd never see Duterte as anything but a messiah, there are some people that just won't believe natural selection in macroevolution.

I wonder though, if not from dinosaurs, where exactly do you think birds came from?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All the fossil can tell you is that those creature lived a billion years ago. Biological evidence? Where?

I'm smarter than a scientific community. That's funny, Haeckel embryos were accepted in the scientific community to support Darwinian Evolution and turned out that he faked it. You're starting to sound that science of Darwinian Evolution is infallible.

Again... Unguided process, Random mutation, and Natural Selection. Use that to prove the creation of an entirely different specie. From dinosaurs to birds. We are talking about Darwinism here.

Point me to the right direction... New genetic instruction by way of Random Mutation on a Macro Scale.

**jut703** · February 28th, 2016 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by ClaNker

All the fossil can tell you is that those creature lived a billion years ago. Biological evidence? Where?

I'm smarter than a scientific community. That's funny, Haeckel embryos were accepted in the scientific community to support Darwinian Evolution and turned out that he faked it. You're starting to sound that science of Darwinian Evolution is infallible.

Again... Unguided process, Random mutation, and Natural Selection. Use that to prove the creation of an entirely different specie. From dinosaurs to birds. We are talking about Darwinism here.

Point me to the right direction... New genetic instruction by way of Random Mutation on a Macro Scale.

Fossils also show you the anatomical similarities of theropods and today's birds (such as hollow bones common with both). Studies on a molecular level also show that their tissues have more in common than previously thought.

A simple explanation of the evolution of birds:
How Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs | Quanta Magazine

Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time arguing with someone who thinks left-field suppositions are as valid as theories that have scientific consensus. Not that Darwinian theory is infallible, but it's the best we've got.

Pisay is in need of bio profs right now. Since you have such radical opinions on current evolutionary theories, you might want to share your wisdom on the next generation of kids so they don't end up to be Darwinian believers like me.

Have a good day.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ClaNker** · February 28th, 2016 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by jut703

Fossils also show you the anatomical similarities of theropods and today's birds (such as hollow bones common with both). Studies on a molecular level also show that their tissues have more in common than previously thought.

A simple explanation of the evolution of birds:
How Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs | Quanta Magazine

Anyway, I'm not wasting any more time arguing with someone who thinks left-field suppositions are as valid as theories that have scientific consensus. Not that Darwinian theory is infallible, but it's the best we've got.

Pisay is in need of bio profs right now. Since you have such radical opinions on current evolutionary theories, you might want to share your wisdom on the next generation of kids so they don't end up to be Darwinian believers like me.

Have a good day.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah fossil.

Why don't you read about Rodhocetus, and how they manipulated the drawing to support their idea that this is in fact the transitional fossil of the land based mammal evolving into a pre-historic whale. Yes they've drawn it like Haeckel drawn his embryos.

Have a good day to you as well.