sagenaija:

I wanted to stick to the topic of the thread. That's why I asked: Suppose I ask you if you believe that, given time, iPhone can evolve on its own, what would you say as a believer in evolution?
What's your answer to that question?

Please don't be an illiterate. Is iPhone a living organization
MY GUY THINK BEFORE YOU TALK

TenQ:

Dont change the topic: Liar!

It's a big character flaw; it's nothing to be proud of.

Signing out!!

Genetic code works like computer code.

Only from an illiterate

ifyken:

Please don't be an illiterate. Is iPhone a living organization
MY GUY THINK BEFORE YOU TALK

Thinking guy, an iphone is something that is created.
If evolution can move from a unicellular organism to man with his enormous BRAIN FUNCTION why can't it work to bring about an iPhone?

Can chance and time (two basis of evolution) bring it about? Without 'intelligence' can it come into existence? Why restrict the boundaries of evolution?

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Thinking guy, an iphone is something that is created.
If evolution can move from a unicellular organism to man with his enormous BRAIN FUNCTION why can't it work to bring about an iPhone?

Can chance and time (two basis of evolution) bring it about? Without 'intelligence' can it come into existence? Why restrict the boundaries of evolution?

Christians when DNA test confirms their paternity VS when same DNA test confirms that they are distant cousins of chimpanzees.

Confused people that are full of shit

ayourlerweezo:

We evolve from monkeys why are there still monkeys

Humans did not evolve from monkeys.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
Thinking guy, an iphone is something that is created.
If evolution can move from a unicellular organism to man with his enormous BRAIN FUNCTION why can't it work to bring about an iPhone?

Can chance and time (two basis of evolution) bring it about? Without 'intelligence' can it come into existence? Why restrict the boundaries of evolution?

Think again is iPhone living,the example you just referenced all includes living organism.

LordReed:


In science a theory is not a frivolous claim someone makes to simply air his own views and opinions. A theory has been rigorously tested and verified to be correct. Evolution has been tested in different ways and found to hold up. One famous way has been to look for rabbits before the Cambrian explosion in the fossil records and till date there are none because the theory predicts that such an animal did not emerge until during the Cambrian explosion. Another way the theory has been tested is in a lab setting with unicellular organisms which under predator pressure developed the ability to become multicellular over successive generations despite not carrying the genetic information for that particular mutation. This is to illustrate the kind of rigour a theory goes through and the what it takes to call something a theory. Newton's theories continue to hold up despite being formulated so long ago because it has continued to prove true within the scope it is supposed to apply in.

I am not questioning science as a discipline but where areas in science do not line up, integrity demands that they be called up.

Scientific theories are not cast in stone. Peer reviews can make for changes to an earlier postulate.

Observation is different from proof of causality. 

The theory of evolution has gone through quite some 'evolution' from Lamarck and Darwin to the position(s) we have today.

When it comes to evolution, the issue is how it has "been rigorously tested and verified to be correct" like you stated. You mentioned a few ways you said it has been tested. Observation of a static system can really not show how progression took place. On the experiment: I'd like to see the details. But then how do we relate working in a controlled environment to that in natural systems?

Earlier proponents of evolution focused on species and the natural world. While laboratory recreations may be of help, at the end of the day it is in NATURE that evolution is said to be taking place (I hope there is no theory yet that claims it has stopped taking place). It would therefore be helpful to see how a process that has been on for millions of years can be seen TODAY to 'prove' evolution. Obviously something that started some eons ago should be observable today with mankind's improved research capabilities and wealth of knowledge acquired over time.

If evolution started from some primordial water and organisms started from there to become terrestrial, how come it is so difficult to observe and show how some workings in some body of water is changing some kind of organism or creature from a previous state to a new one, moving them from say being aquatic to terrestrial whether at micro or other levels?

So, the issue of truly verifiable tests or evidence, I believe, is still a major hurdle for the theory of evolution to cross.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
I am not questioning science as a discipline but where areas in science do not line up, integrity demands that they be called up.

Scientific theories are not cast in stone. Peer reviews can make for changes to an earlier postulate.

Observation is different from proof of causality. 

The theory of evolution has gone through quite some 'evolution' from Lamarck and Darwin to the position(s) we have today.

When it comes to evolution, the issue is how it has "been rigorously tested and verified to be correct" like you stated. You mentioned a few ways you said it has been tested. Observation of a static system can really not show how progression took place. On the experiment: I'd like to see the details. But then how do we relate working in a controlled environment to that in natural systems?

Earlier proponents of evolution focused on species and the natural world. While laboratory recreations may be of help, at the end of the day it is in NATURE that evolution is said to be taking place (I hope there is no theory yet that claims it has stopped taking place). It would therefore be helpful to see how a process that has been on for millions of years can be seen TODAY to 'prove' evolution. Obviously something that started some eons ago should be observable today with mankind's improved research capabilities and wealth of knowledge acquired over time.

If evolution started from some primordial water and organisms started from there to become terrestrial, how come it is so difficult to observe and show how some workings in some body of water is changing some kind of organism or creature from a previous state to a new one, moving them from say being aquatic to terrestrial whether at micro or other levels?

So, the issue of truly verifiable tests or evidence, I believe, is still a major hurdle for the theory of evolution to cross.

It is difficult to observe as ongoing in nature because the timelines are way beyond the lifetime of the average human. We have to focus on what we can glean from the lab and what we find in the fossil records. Like I mention for the precambrian rabbit many other animal fossils have been made that were confirmed by fossil finds. Tiktaalik for example is a fossil that was found that provided evidence that there was indeed a transition from aquatic to terrestrial lifeforms.

Why are the changes we observe now not enough? Human average height has been increasing for some time now. Human ability to metabolise cow milk is also changing. Changes like these are what accumulate over time so I dunno what kind of changes you are hoping to observe.

LordReed:


It is difficult to observe as ongoing in nature because the timelines are way beyond the lifetime of the average human. We have to focus on what we can glean from the lab and what we find in the fossil records. Like I mention for the precambrian rabbit many other animal fossils have been made that were confirmed by fossil finds. Tiktaalik for example is a fossil that was found that provided evidence that there was indeed a transition from aquatic to terrestrial lifeforms.

Why are the changes we observe now not enough? Human average height has been increasing for some time now. Human ability to metabolise cow milk is also changing. Changes like these are what accumulate over time so I dunno what kind of changes you are hoping to observe.

The guy have been arguing for about six pages now,I don't think there is anything you will say that will convince him, i would have told you to just ignore him but I am also gaining knowledge about evolution I didn't know before

ifyken:

The guy have been arguing for about six pages now,I don't think there is anything you will say that will convince him, i would have told you to just ignore him but I am also gaining knowledge about evolution I didn't know before

That may be the case but I love talking and learning about Evolution so I don't mind. Let's all learn together.

LordReed:


It is difficult to observe as ongoing in nature because the timelines are way beyond the lifetime of the average human. We have to focus on what we can glean from the lab and what we find in the fossil records. Like I mention for the precambrian rabbit many other animal fossils have been made that were confirmed by fossil finds. Tiktaalik for example is a fossil that was found that provided evidence that there was indeed a transition from aquatic to terrestrial lifeforms.

Why are the changes we observe now not enough? Human average height has been increasing for some time now. Human ability to metabolise cow milk is also changing. Changes like these are what accumulate over time so I dunno what kind of changes you are hoping to observe.

The highlighted goes all the more to agree with my claim that majority of those who hold on to evolution do so, not based on any empirical evidence they can readily test out, but by faith.

sagenaija:
[size=6pt][/size]
The highlighted goes all the more to agree with my claim that majority of those who hold on to evolution do so, not based on any empirical evidence they can readily test out, but by faith.

You miss the point. The kind of change you are talking about would not be experienced in a lifetime doesn’t mean changes are not taking place. Within our life times we have seen speciation events so there is no faith involved.

LordReed:


You miss the point. The kind of change you are talking about would not be experienced in a lifetime doesn’t mean changes are not taking place. Within our life times we have seen speciation events so there is no faith involved.

ifyken:



I don't live irresponsibly, i live by the law and retribution and punishment will be meted out on me if I don't follow them.
.

Who sets the law you live by?

sagenaija:

What is causing your confusion?