The Theory of Evolution

[Phoenix]

Are dinosaurs mentioned in the Bible...?

[Vangelovski]

.

Evolution doesn't seek to explain where the original information came from. Evolution acknowledges that the original information existed. It doesn't need to explain where that original information came from in order for evolutionary processes to be true.

Evolutionists don't need to explain where information came from originally for the evolutionary process to be true, but it does have to explain the production of new information. What evolution postulates is that every living thing evolved from one original "soup". That original "soup" did not contain the genetic information required for all living creatures, plants, bacteria etc. The only way for that genetic information to come into existence is for new information to be produced. Evolutionists still cannot explain how this new information comes into existence.

Origin of life and the initial information (on which evolution is founded but seemingly does not want to admit it) are different questions and we'll most probably get to them at some stage. Right now, I'm still left unsatisfied with how new information can be produced.

[vicsinad]

Evolutionists don't need to explain where information came from originally for the evolutionary process to be true, but it does have to explain the production of new information. What evolution postulates is that every living thing evolved from one original "soup". That original "soup" did not contain the genetic information required for all living creatures, plants, bacteria etc. The only way for that genetic information to come into existence is for new information to be produced. Evolutionists still cannot explain how this new information comes into existence.

The original soup, as you called it, contained the information necessary to eventually get to genetic information, even if you don't consider it genetic in nature. Genes are essentially just combinations of chemicals. The precursor to genes was just a combination of chemicals. No new chemicals need be produced. I have a feeling you are very removed from chemical and biological processes and knowledge. Regardless, again, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of life, but rather how life changes. That is evolution.

Origin of life and the initial information (on which evolution is founded but seemingly does not want to admit it) are different questions and we'll most probably get to them at some stage. Right now, I'm still left unsatisfied with how new information can be produced.

I'm not here to satisfy you.

[Vangelovski]

The original soup, as you called it, contained the information necessary to eventually get to genetic information, even if you don't consider it genetic in nature. Genes are essentially just combinations of chemicals. The precursor to genes was just a combination of chemicals. No new chemicals need be produced. I have a feeling you are very removed from chemical and biological processes and knowledge. Regardless, again, evolutionary theory has nothing to do with the origins of life, but rather how life changes. That is evolution.

How do you know that the "original soup" contained all the necessary information? Did you observe or have you been able to reproduce it? What information did it contain?

[spitfire]

How Evolution works - YouTube

[George S.]

I think dinorsors are mentioned in the bible .Even giant peeple and leviathan fish
.There are many anamals preserved in ice that rxisted prrviously.in siberia and other parts ovf rurope.WOlly mammoths.

[Vangelovski]

How Evolution works - YouTube

That's a nice cartoon, but again it only deals with combinations of existing information and losses of information. The cartoon does not explain how new information is produced, which is what is necessary for macro-evolution - the idea that all living things evolved from some single cell molecule that was supposedly around some 5 billion years ago and supposedly just popped out of nowhere with all the "necessary information" already there.

[spitfire]

That's a nice cartoon, but again it only deals with combinations of existing information and losses of information. The cartoon does not explain how new information is produced, which is what is necessary for macro-evolution - the idea that all living things evolved from some single cell molecule that was supposedly around some 5 billion years ago and supposedly just popped out of nowhere with all the "necessary information" already there.

I think it's been said that evolution does not explain the origin of life but the development of life.

The example with the finches explains what hasn't been adopted in the conversation so far. That of natural selection.
I think that by the end of the explanation in the video, there are all the links of how evolution works and how new spieces are created.
New spieces are created through the interaction of unique individuals->the excess production of offspring->re-combination and mutation in heredity and finally through selection.

[Vangelovski]

I think it's been said that evolution does not explain the origin of life but the development of life.

The example with the finches explains what hasn't been adopted in the conversation so far. That of natural selection.
I think that by the end of the explanation in the video, there are all the links of how evolution works and how new spieces are created.
New spieces are created through the interaction of unique individuals->the excess production of offspring->re-combination and mutation in heredity and finally through selection.

I'll re-state it for you:

The cartoon does not explain how new information is produced, which is what is necessary for macro-evolution - the idea that all living things evolved from some single cell molecule that was supposedly around some 5 billion years ago.

This is not origin of life. According to evolutionary theory, a preexisting life-form is a necessary condition for macro-evolution to take place. While this is a mind-boggling assumption on which to build a theory of how life on earth came to exist in the form it does, we'll leave origin of life for the moment. The cartoon still does not address the problem of new information which is necessary for molecule to man evolution.

Its one thing to say that different combinations of existing information or losses of information account for some differences within species (like short haired dogs vs long haired dogs), its another to claim that a single cell molecule evolved into a human being without producing new information.

For a supposedly scientific theory which some portray as an established fact, we are still unable to explain one of the most basic and necessary elements of this supposed process...the production of new information being one of them.

[spitfire]

You mean it doesn't take it to the extend of explaining of how all the evolution happened, in which case I would agree.
But in the video, in a simplistic way, it explains the process of new creations.

From a non expert's view such as mine, I find this logical. But when it comes to science extending questions about the past, then it becomes more of a theory.
That's approximately the same difficulty with the explanation of how the universe was created.

[Vangelovski]

But in the video, in a simplistic way, it explains the process of new creations.

I don't think it explains new creatures at all. It explains how there are differences within existing species - like the dog example I gave above, but a dog is not going to grow wings and evolve into a new creature. To do that, new information would need to be produced (not just a recombination of existing information). Evolutionists are yet to explain how the production of new information is even possible.

[spitfire]

I don't think it explains new creatures at all. It explains how there are differences within existing species - like the dog example I gave above, but a dog is not going to grow wings and evolve into a new creature ever. To do that, new information would need to be produced (not just a recombination of existing information).

It did with the finches. Those two species are completely different through evolution.
It's not only re-combination. It's natural selection too.

For a dog to have wings, well we need to think in billions of years. Every change is a small one and there is progresson of changes. A different spieces is the one that cannot give offsprings anymore if they procreate with each other. That's different spieces. The dog and the bird are also different categories of spieces, so that's quite a very long shot for it to happen. Maybe in billions of years.

[spitfire]

One more interesting question for the creationists (as opposed to evolutionists I guess).

Do you think that maybe the creation of man was not something that was done from scratch, but rather a soul given to him (by God presumably) at some point of his evolution?

[Phoenix]

... Evolutionists are yet to explain how the production of new information is even possible.

LOL...as opposed to creationists who have irrefutable 'proof' of their position in the debate.

[Vangelovski]

It did with the finches. Those two species are completely different through evolution.
It's not only re-combination. It's natural selection too.

For a dog to have wings, well we need to think in billions of years. Every change is a small one and there is progresson of changes. A different spieces is the one that cannot give offsprings anymore if they procreate with each other. That's different spieces. The dog and the bird are also different categories of spieces, so that's quite a very long shot for it to happen. Maybe in billions of years.

It didn't explain anything in any detail for the finches - it just pressuposed evolution was true and made unsubstantiated statements about how the finches may have changed. But that could also be explained by re-combination and losses of information. Going from a single cell molecule to a finch would require new information to be produced and there is still no explanation for that.

As for your comment on dogs, you still fail to explain how new information would be produced to enable the wings to grow.