Christian Forums

Continued from reply # 239

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

QuoteIt's a big step for evolution, going from a single cell focused solely on its own survival to a multicellular organism where cells coordinate and work together. Creationists often cite this jump as evidence of God's influence, because it seems impossible that creatures could make such a brazen leap unaided. But scientists have shown that multicellularity can arise in the lab, given strong enough selective pressure.

How about that, random chance evolution is kind of like a baby, it eventually learned to take its first steps too. Who knew random chance was like a thing that could learn. Who knew cells could act like a person or intelligent entity and focus upon survival. That they could consciously coordinate, cooperate and work together unto our creation. Or that random chance could make the world like a lab, and give it strong enough selective pressure to cause all such to begin and continue for no apparent reason or purpose. No one of course. Random chance cannot have anything to do with any of the above, save it be one accidental event after another in accidental perfect order conducive to evolution. I guess cells are now qualified as creatures now according to the above as well. They certainly are extremely more complex than Darwin and his cronies ever knew.

Evolution is a theory that takes it for granted that such incredibly unlikely circumstances are in fact what happened, by faith, not testable scientific observation. What some of the evolutionary faith can produce in a lab as thinking, reasoning beings with exact purpose and intent, has nothing at all to do with what could or would occur according to random chance. Comparing the two at all, is nonsensical. Only abject ignorance, or detrimental single mindedness, would presume that what they produced in a lab with exact intent and purpose to do so in regards to a personal theory, was what random chance actually brought about according to the same. If this is not the hight of arrogance and selfish pride, then I do not know what is. If this is not the hight of avoiding intelligent design or a creator, then I do not know what is.

Intelligent, reasoning, thinking beings with exact purpose and intent are really working in labs trying to prove that what they might accomplish and all that we see of a complexity beyond our comprehension, came about by countless trillions of random chance accidents over and over again. This is unbridled and out of control rebellion not only against God, but all practical common sense altogether. So be it.

QuoteJust ask William Ratcliff and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota. In a PNAS paper published online this week, they show how multicellular yeast can arise in less than two months in the lab. To achieve this leap, they took brewer's yeast - a common, single celled lab organism - and grew them in a liquid medium. Once a day, they gently spun the yeast in the culture, starting the next batch with whichever cells ended up at the bottom of the tube. Because the force of spinning pulls larger things down first, clumps of cells were more likely to be at the bottom than single ones, thus setting up a strong selective pressure for multicellularity.

Shakespeare said all the world is a stage, but he was just a writer and entertainer, thanks to evolutionary scientists we now know that all the world was and is a lab. Fairy tale evolution though, has a lab technicians problem, there are none in their theory. Their lab which is the world, is run by only a single lab technician called random chance. In their fairy tale depictions, random chance can continually perform the duties of countless human lab techs with exact purpose and intent, and miraculously out perform all of them. How about that, random chance creating the perfect conditions for evolution over and again trillions of times. Why not, if your'e going to believe in fairy tales, you might as well go all the way. What but a completely delusional mind, could compare the processes described above performed in a lab, with random chance occurrences unto all that is?

QuoteAll of their cultures went from single cells to snowflake-like clumps in less than 60 days. "Although known transitions to complex multicellularity, with clearly differentiated cell types, occurred over millions of years, we have shown that the first crucial steps in the transition from unicellularity to multicellularity can evolve remarkably quickly under appropriate selective conditions," write the authors. These clumps weren't just independent cells sticking together for the sake of it - they acted as rudimentary multicellular creatures. They were formed not by random cells attaching but by genetically identical cells not fully separating after division.

Ah yes, all those cultures random chance changed into snowflake-like clumps under the appropriate selective conditions it arranged while gently spinning them in a centrifuge. Of course none of the above even attempts to explain where any cells came from in the first place, which are themselves of an incomprehensible complexity and design as it were.

http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/The-Complexity-of-the-Cell.pdf

QuoteProfessor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."

To be continued in later posts.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:26:48
Actually, amber is recovered right near the surface.    Like dinosaur bones, it gets buried, and then over time, erosion removes most of of the sediment, and it is then found.   

They are.   Almost all dinosaur bones and amber degrade over time.   Only when they have been buried under specific circumstances do they fossilize.   The imaginative story that dinosaur bones are somehow different than other fossils, is merely an evasion.

It is just what I would expect from one trying to deny the truth of the matter.

Actually Schweitzer and others used the data from other such fossils to support their claim that the heme and collagen molecules in some dinosaur bone were also preserved as she knew they were in other fossils.   You've been misled about that.   As you now realize, there are many such examples in the literature.   Did you suppose Schweitzer didn't know about them?   Seriously?

But Schweitzer's team pressed on. In 2009, she, Asara, and colleagues reported in Science that they had isolated protein fragments from a second dinosaur, an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur. Asara's lab identified eight collagen fragments. This time Schweitzer sent samples of fossil extract to an independent lab, which also detected three of the collagen fragments.

Collectively, the sequences showed the purported hadrosaur collagen was more closely related to T. rex and birds than to modern reptiles. "This proves the first [T. rex] study was not a one-hit wonder," Asara said at the time. Two labs also detected the proteins laminin and elastin with antibody tests, although mass spectrometry failed to turn up sequences for these proteins.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/09/i-don-t-care-what-they-say-about-me-paleontologist-stares-down-critics-her-hunt

The real news is that Schweitzer's data provide an entirely new confirmation that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   As you learned, it's been known for decades that organic molecules can survive in fossils for many millions of years.   Would you like me to show you more examples?

Twist and turn.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:19:02
If anyone was misled, it was by scientists of your own faith, not mine. A creation scientist would have no good reason to be as surprised by such.

There was considerable consternation among creationists when the molecules Schweitzer located, one again confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   However creation scientists, who (as you learned) admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" (Kurt Wise) and that:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

QuoteEven though biological soft tissues thousands of years old is no doubt somewhat rare.

No, that's not true.   It's not hard to find at all.   Tissues (which is not what Schweitzer found) are surprisingly easy to find from thousands of years.  So far, no one's shown actual tissue (groups of cells organized for some function) that are many millions of years old.  But as Schweitzer and others have shown, organic molecules do indeed last that long under some circumstances.

And, as you also now realize, that's been known for decades.   You can twist and turn as you will, but the reality is documented again, and again.

No way to dodge it.

QuoteProfessor of biology Michael Denton, in his book entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, explains this complexity with an example: "To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalelled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity... (a complexity) beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man..."

Let's see what Denton has to say about evolution...

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

You sure you want to tout Denton's views on evolution?

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:43:19
There was considerable consternation among creationists when the molecules Schweitzer located, one again confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.   However creation scientists, who (as you learned) admit that the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory" (Kurt Wise) and that:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true.
http://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/truth-about-evolution.html

No, that's not true.   It's not hard to find at all.   Tissues (which is not what Schweitzer found) are surprisingly easy to find from thousands of years.  So far, no one's shown actual tissue (groups of cells organized for some function) that are many millions of years old.  But as Schweitzer and others have shown, organic molecules do indeed last that long under some circumstances.

And, as you also now realize, that's been known for decades.   You can twist and turn as you will, but the reality is documented again, and again.

No way to dodge it.

No, evolution is not about to collapse, it has millions of deceived followers, just like Buddhism, Islam, and a score of other false religions. Soft tissue does not last for hundreds of millions of years simply because evolutionist gurus say so. This is only so in minds of those who have chosen the evolution fairy tale faith. Nothing is so, because you or other evolutionists believe it is. Blogger Todd is as entitled to his opinion as all the rest of us, I place no value in his opinion though. Evolution is a most obvious farce.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:47:23
Let's see what Denton has to say about evolution...

t is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science--that the cosmos is a seamless unity which can be comprehended in its entirety by human reason and in which all phenomena, including life and evolution and the origin of man, are ultimately explicable in terms of natural processes. This is an assumption which is entirely opposed to that of the so-called "special creationist school." According to special creationism, living organisms are not natural forms, whose origin and design were built into the laws of nature from the beginning, but rather contingent forms analogous in essence to human artifacts, the result of a series of supernatural acts, involving God's direct intervention in the course of nature, each of which involved the suspension of natural law. Contrary to the creationist position, the whole argument presented here is critically dependent on the presumption of the unbroken continuity of the organic world--that is, on the reality of organic evolution and on the presumption that all living organisms on earth are natural forms in the profoundest sense of the word, no less natural than salt crystals, atoms, waterfalls, or galaxies.

In large measure, therefore, the teleological argument presented here and the special creationist worldview are mutually exclusive accounts of the world. In the last analysis, evidence for one is evidence against the other. Put simply, the more convincing is the evidence for believing that the world is prefabricated to the end of life, that the design is built into the laws of nature, the less credible becomes the special creationist worldview.
Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny

You sure you want to tout Denton's views on evolution?

I don't even know what the argument presented here which Denton is addressing is. I do agree with his following open statement though, which is blatantly obvious.

It is important to emphasize at the outset that the argument presented here is entirely consistent with the basic naturalistic assumption of modern science

QuoteWEBSTER

Assumption - 1. The act of assuming. 2. A statement accepted or supposed true without proof or demonstration. 3. Presumption or arrogance.

The belief in Natural biological evolution is an assumption which has not and cannot be proved and is touted as factual truth by presumptive and arrogant people, and either their mindless followers, or willing disciples who have chosen such as their faith.

Quote from: Amo on Sun Feb 09, 2020 - 11:35:51
Continued from reply # 239How about that, random chance evolution is kind of like a baby,

Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. This keeps tripping you up, each time you try to understand it.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 12:14:47The belief in Natural biological evolution is an assumption which has not and cannot be proved

It's directly observed to happen.   Remember what evolution is.   "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   You've likely confused evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or with consequences of evolution, like common descent.

As you might know, most creationist groups admit the truth of natural selection, and even a limited amount of common descent.   Would you like to learn about those?

Mad Mike Hughes certainly couldn't prove that the earth was flat but he certainly proved that the law of physics are valid. 

Quote from: Amo on Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 11:50:57
No, evolution is not about to collapse,

Being observed constantly, it's pretty hard not to notice that it's going strong.

Quoteit has millions of deceived followers, just like Buddhism, Islam, and a score of other false religions.

As you demonstrate, YE creationists confuse science and religion, which is why they don't accept Genesis as God gave it to us.

QuoteSoft tissue does not last for hundreds of millions of years

Apparently not, since no one has found tissue that old.  (you don't seem to know what "tissue" means in biology)   On the other hand,as you learned, some organic molecules can persist that long under the right conditions.  One of those recently again confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

QuoteBlogger Todd is as entitled to his opinion as all the rest of us,

Being a PhD biologist, he does have some weight to his opinion.   

QuoteI place no value in his opinion though.

As Everett Dirkson once noted, people are often down on things they aren't up on.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 15:47:27
Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. This keeps tripping you up, each time you try to understand it.

I'm not trying to understand the vain imaginings of men. I am refuting them. Vain speculations are nothing to trip over.

QuoteDefinition of random (Entry 1 of 3)
: a haphazard course
at random
: without definite aim, direction, rule, or method
.......................
Definition of random (Entry 2 of 3)
1a : lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern

Aim, direction, rule, or method are employed by thinking reasoning beings. Not inanimate objects, elements, chemical compounds and or reactions between the same and the like. Nevertheless, even these elements and or reactions between them are governed by laws already in place. They did not create the laws they are governed by, or the atmosphere or environment within which they exist. God created it, them, and all life. None of it just happened, nor would, could, or did any of it just happen. Humanities deep time evolutionary scenarios are just another attempt to bring God down to their own level, or raise themselves up to His. Neither is possible from our end of reality, though God Himself did become a man in order to save us from just such foolishness.

Isa 55:8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Feb 22, 2020 - 15:59:10
It's directly observed to happen.   Remember what evolution is.   "A change in allele frequencies in a population over time.   You've likely confused evolution with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or with consequences of evolution, like common descent.

As you might know, most creationist groups admit the truth of natural selection, and even a limited amount of common descent.   Would you like to learn about those?

No matter how many times you repeat the lie, it will not change the truth that evolution is not observed to happen. Change is not evolution in demonstration but in the minds of those who have chosen it as their god.

2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

You do not preach the word, but rather one of the fables mentioned above. I do not have itching ears, and therefore do not desire to "learn" anything from you. My faith is in the scriptures, not the "scientific" speculations of those who contradict its testimony.

Psa 33:1 Rejoice in the LORD, O ye righteous: for praise is comely for the upright. 2 Praise the LORD with harp: sing unto him with the psaltery and an instrument of ten strings. 3 Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. 4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth. 5 He loveth righteousness and judgment: the earth is full of the goodness of the LORD. 6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. 7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses. 8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him. 9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

None of fallen humanities speculations and observations will ever change the truth of the above words but in the minds of the deceived.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 00:07:55
Being observed constantly, it's pretty hard not to notice that it's going strong.

As you demonstrate, YE creationists confuse science and religion, which is why they don't accept Genesis as God gave it to us.

Apparently not, since no one has found tissue that old.  (you don't seem to know what "tissue" means in biology)   On the other hand,as you learned, some organic molecules can persist that long under the right conditions.  One of those recently again confirmed that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Being a PhD biologist, he does have some weight to his opinion.   

As Everett Dirkson once noted, people are often down on things they aren't up on.

More repeated nonsense which changes nothing.

Quote from: Alan on Fri Feb 28, 2020 - 09:49:27
Mad Mike Hughes certainly couldn't prove that the earth was flat but he certainly proved that the law of physics are valid. 

V=at.     E_p = mgh    E_k= 1/2mV²

Continued from reply #245

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

QuoteOur eyes, as well as those of octopuses and fish, took a different approach than those of the arthropods, putting photo receptors into a pit, thus creating what is referred to as a camera-style eye. In the fossil record, eyes seem to emerge from eyeless predecessors rapidly, in less than 5 million years. But is it really possible that an eye like ours arose so suddenly? Yes, say biologists Dan-E. Nilsson and Susanne Pelger. They calculated a pessimistic guess as to how long it would take for small changes - just 1% improvements in length, depth, etc per generation - to turn a flat eyespot into an eye like our own. Their conclusion? It would only take about 400,000 years - a geological instant.

How about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures. Who knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so. I wonder why our eyes have decided they no longer need to become more advanced and are therefore apparently no longer changing? More fairy tale speculations and personification of organs in this case, by "scientists" giving us their best guess. Which guess their faithful followers I suppose, are supposed to accept as evolutionary fact.

The above description fails to address the fact that any changes taking place, would have to either not effect the already complex and interdependent nature of eye function, or add to it and fit in with said complex relations. It is one thing for simple change to occur, it is another altogether for change perfectly adapted to fit into an already highly complex and interdependent system to occur. Anyone who cannot see the exponentially increasing improbability of such occurring in and ever increasingly complex organ or organism, simply doesn't want to look the facts in the face.

It is not just change that must take place, but each change must become more and more specific to a positive effect upon the complex relation and function of the organ or organism already in place. Each change also adding to the complexity and therefore improbability of the next change which would have to be even more specific. Each change therefore making the next change all the more unlikely. Such is of course much more highly suggestive of design than simplistic evolutionary change unto incomprehensible complexity. This is unless of course we are looking at devolution rather than evolution. In which case decreasing complexity would be fully expected.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 16:13:03
Continued from reply #245

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

How about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures.

Yep.   Unlike (for example) octopi, squid, and nautili, our eyes are extensions of neural tube ectoderm, meaning they are from the nervous system.  So ours are "backward" with respect to those of an octopus.    Just the way they happen to develop.

QuoteWho knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

I'm thinking you've jumped to a rather odd conclusion here.

QuoteI wonder why our eyes have decided they no longer need to become more advanced and are therefore apparently no longer changing?

Actually, they've evolved to be nearly as effective as the "right side out" variety.   A little less acuity, but some other useful adaptations.

This looks like more fairy tale speculations and personification of organs in this case, by "creation scientists" giving us their best guess. 

QuoteThe above description fails to address the fact that any changes taking place, would have to either not effect the already complex and interdependent nature of eye function, or add to it and fit in with said complex relations.

No. 



The chordate eye was quite simple early on, and notice that more complex examples, start as embryos in the same way.

QuoteIt is one thing for simple change to occur, it is another altogether for change perfectly adapted to fit into an already highly complex and interdependent system to occur.

Bad assumption; faulty conclusion.

QuoteIt is not just change that must take place, but each change must become more and more specific to a positive effect upon the complex relation and function of the organ or organism already in place.

See above.  And this...


Each change also adding to the complexity and therefore improbability of the next change which would have to be even more specific. Each change therefore making the next change all the more unlikely. Such is of course much more highly suggestive of design than simplistic evolutionary change unto incomprehensible complexity. This is unless of course we are looking at devolution rather than evolution. In which case decreasing complexity would be fully expected. [/color]
[/quote]

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 17:54:45
Yep.   Unlike (for example) octopi, squid, and nautili, our eyes are extensions of neural tube ectoderm, meaning they are from the nervous system.  So ours are "backward" with respect to those of an octopus.    Just the way they happen to develop.

I'm thinking you've jumped to a rather odd conclusion here.

Actually, they've evolved to be nearly as effective as the "right side out" variety.   A little less acuity, but some other useful adaptations.

This looks like more fairy tale speculations and personification of organs in this case, by "creation scientists" giving us their best guess. 

No. 



The chordate eye was quite simple early on, and notice that more complex examples, start as embryos in the same way.

Bad assumption; faulty conclusion.


See above.  And this...


Each change also adding to the complexity and therefore improbability of the next change which would have to be even more specific. Each change therefore making the next change all the more unlikely. Such is of course much more highly suggestive of design than simplistic evolutionary change unto incomprehensible complexity. This is unless of course we are looking at devolution rather than evolution. In which case decreasing complexity would be fully expected. [/color]

Ohhhh! I didn't know you had pretty pictures to help explain your theory. That changes everything, I am of course now a believer. NOT! Creation scientists aren't giving people their best guesses about a theory they created and sustain like fairy tale evolutionists, they admit of their faith in the holy scriptures, and make speculations and observations according to that faith.

My comments addressing the nonsensical presumptions of evolutionists to the effect of eyes exercising their right to choose as though they were sentient beings in and of themselves, are not conclusions. They are comments addressing the nonsensical presumptions or conclusions of evolutionists. Cells, molecules, tissues, organs, and or appendages do not choose to do anything. Either evolution was directed and controlled by a thinking reasoning being, or it is the single most presumptive and nonsensical theory out there. Nothing like what we see in this world just happens. Nor are the cells, tissues, organs, and or appendages of existing creatures thinking, reasoning, or acting agents in and if themselves as presumptive evolutionists seem to project in their wild speculations.

You are not teaching anyone anything, but the prideful babble of Babylon the Great herself, calculated to confuse the plain truths of the holy scriptures unto deception and destruction of souls. Your theory will end with her, as will all other lies and deceptions.

Rev 18:7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

Rev 22:12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

You do continually war against the testimony of one of the commandments of God in preaching your pet theory as scientific fact in direct contradiction to the bibles creation account, and the fourth commandment spoken by the mouth of God to humanity and written with His own finger twice in stone. So be it.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Either the above is a lie, or your theory is a lie.

Continued from reply #259

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

QuoteBut how does complexity arise in the first place? How did cells get photoreceptors, or any of the first steps towards innovations such as vision? Well, complexity can arise a number of ways.

Each and every one of our cells is a testament to the simplest way that complexity can arise: have one simple thing combine with a different one. The powerhouses of our cells, called mitochondria, are complex organelles that are thought to have arisen in a very simple way. Some time around 3 billion years ago, certain bacteria had figured out how to create energy using electrons from oxygen, thus becoming aerobic. Our ancient ancestors thought this was quite a neat trick, and, as single cells tend to do, they ate these much smaller energy-producing bacteria. But instead of digesting their meal, our ancestors allowed the bacteria to live inside them as an endosymbiont, and so the deal was struck: our ancestor provides the fuel for the chemical reactions that the bacteria perform, and the bacteria, in turn, produces ATP for both of them. Even today we can see evidence of this early agreement - mitochondria, unlike other organelles, have their own DNA, reproduce independently of the cell's reproduction, and are enclosed in a double membrane (the bacterium's original membrane and the membrane capsule used by our ancestor to engulf it). Over time the mitochondria lost other parts of their biology they didn't need, like the ability to move around, blending into their new home as if they never lived on their own. The end result of all of this, of course, was a much more complex cell, with specialized intracellular compartments devoted to different functions: what we now refer to as a eukaryote.

Random chance does not produce or introduce innovations. No accidental change coming about through random chance is an innovation. Either evolution was directed by an innovative being, or it just happened by chance. There is no innovation in random chance. If change unto complexity and a higher state of being is by design or direction, then it is not evolution, but rather a controlled endeavor actuated with reason and intent. Of course complexity could arise in a number of ways, if the innovations of a thinking reasoning being were applied to it. This is not the claim of evolution though. So why do fairy tale evolutionists continually apply such terminology to their supposedly random chance theory of our being? Is it not because somewhere in the back of their minds they know this mindset to be unreasonable gobbledegook?

This silly evolutionist then declares that the mere existence of each and every cell, is a testament to the rise of complexity within the same. BALONEY! This is the assumption of those of the random chance biological evolutionary faith. Just as design is the assumption of Creationists according to biblical faith. As is obvious, many evolutionists simply are not capable of separating scientific fact, from the faith they have chosen. The faith of creationists leads them to observe that complexity is suggestive of design. The faith of evolutionists leads them to observe that complexity just happened, though much of their terminology and conjecture, seems to suggest otherwise. Which it seems to me, suggests the obvious turmoil in their minds between simple logic, and the unreasonable demands of their chosen faith.

This nonsense and contradictory behavior continues in the observations of the quote above suggesting that certain bacteria figured out, how to create energy. Then the cells, referred to as our ancestors, thought it a neat trick, to eat these bacteria but not digest them. Instead they allowed them to live inside of them, and then struck a deal with them, and made an agreement concerning such. These are the delusional rantings of one who has chosen a faith which demands random chance by leaving God out of the scenario, yet cannot completely escape the simple logic of purpose and design, and therefore attributes the same to things which cannot and do not have either in and of themselves. Thinking themselves wise, they have become fools.

Quote from: Amo on Sat Feb 29, 2020 - 16:13:03

How about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures.

Nope.   It's just that anatomical differences required a different formation for vertebrate eyes.   

QuoteWho knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

YE creationists, apparently.   How you guys got that idea, it's hard to say.  Not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence.

QuoteI wonder why our eyes have decided they no longer need to become more advanced and are therefore apparently no longer changing?

Actually, we're seeing some changes:
Tetrachromacy is thought to be rare among human beings. Research shows that it's more common in women than in men. A 2010 study suggests that nearly 12 percent of women may have this fourth color perception channel.

Men aren't as likely to be tetrachromats. Men are actually more likely to be color blind or unable to perceive as many colors as women. This is due to inherited abnormalities in their cones.
https://www.healthline.com/health/tetrachromacy

As you see, the evidence clearly shows the evolution of eyes by gradual stages.   In some phyla, there are even living examples.  No point in denying the facts.   

@The Barbarian

Quick question.

If animals do not see colors like humans do. Can you confirm or deny that animals preceded mankind in existence?

If they did precede mankind in existence, why do you suppose all colors came into being when they may not all me seen?

2nd quick question.

I know for a fact that dogs do see colors. I believe you said not like us as they have only 2 cones and we have 3? (Did not go back to find that)

I believe you also said they would see more of the blue / green colors and not the reds?

If I am wrong, correct me.

Could you speculate as to why,for her very first Christmas I bought my toy poodle12 of her favorite latex balls.

They were of assorted colors of red, orange, blue,green, and a bright yellow.

No matter what ...she always went to and chose the red... Out of the bunch or if separated from the others.

Her red ball was always her favorite.

Wonder why that is since she could not see red,but she would the pretty blu and the pretty green?

Quote from: Rella on Sun Mar 08, 2020 - 15:10:49
@The Barbarian

Quick question.

If animals do not see colors like humans do. Can you confirm or deny that animals preceded mankind in existence?

First, some do see colors like us.   Most mammals don't see colors as well as most primates, but most birds, fish, and many insects see more colors than we do; they have more kinds of color receptors than we do.   Almost all of us have three, but a few, mostly women, have four.    And no, this is not the same as men being VGA, seeing only 16 colors.    That's mostly cultural.

QuoteIf they did precede mankind in existence, why do you suppose all colors came into being when they may not all me seen?

Colors don't have an objective existence; they are only perceived, when different receptors pick up specific ranges of wavelengths of light.    There could be pretty much millions of primary colors if there was some selective purpose for it.   I think the record is held by a species of mantis shrimp, which has 12 different color receptors.

Quote2nd quick question.

I know for a fact that dogs do see colors. I believe you said not like us as they have only 2 cones and we have 3? (Did not go back to find that)

I believe you also said they would see more of the blue / green colors and not the reds?

If I am wrong, correct me.

They see red objects and see them with colors; they just can't distinguish them from other colors.    A friend of mine has typical male-linked red/green color blindness, and can't distinguish the two very well, although with time, he realizes there is a difference in his perception of them. 

QuoteCould you speculate as to why,for her very first Christmas I bought my toy poodle12 of her favorite latex balls.

They were of assorted colors of red, orange, blue,green, and a bright yellow.

No matter what ...she always went to and chose the red... Out of the bunch or if separated from the others.

Her red ball was always her favorite.

Wonder why that is since she could not see red,but she would the pretty blu and the pretty green?

It almost certainly doesn't look grey to her. (Barbarian checks)

Dogs are not completely color blind since they have a dichromatic color perception. Unlike humans who have three different color sensitive cone cells in their retina (red, green and blue) dogs have only two (yellow and blue)[3,4].
This does not mean that dogs can't see green or red objects! It only means that they can't distinguish green, yellow or red objects based on their color. However they can still distinguish a red ball from a green one if there is a difference in the perceived brightness of the two.
The color vision of dogs is similar to a person suffering from deuteranopia (red-green color blindness).
https://dog-vision.andraspeter.com/

There's a spectrum there, showing the way a dog perceives the "Roy G. Biv" visual spectrum of humans.

Human:


Dog:

Amo -

QuoteHow about that, our eyes decided to take a different approach to their evolution than the eyes of other creatures.

Barb. -

QuoteNope.   It's just that anatomical differences required a different formation for vertebrate eyes.

Tell that to Scientific American, and the author of the article they published which I am critiquing. they are the one's suggesting the same in their nonsensical article, not me.

Amo -

QuoteWho knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

Barb. -

QuoteYE creationists, apparently.   How you guys got that idea, it's hard to say.  Not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence.

Quit playing the idiot. It is the article being critiqued suggesting the same, not me or creationists, as you well know. Creationists have no need to personify or give attributes such as thinking, reasoning, or choice to eyes or any other organs of the body, or tissues, or cells, or what have you. God created these things, they did not need to organize or create themselves as the article under examination continually suggests.

Barb. -

QuoteActually, we're seeing some changes:
Tetrachromacy is thought to be rare among human beings. Research shows that it's more common in women than in men. A 2010 study suggests that nearly 12 percent of women may have this fourth color perception channel.

Men aren't as likely to be tetrachromats. Men are actually more likely to be color blind or unable to perceive as many colors as women. This is due to inherited abnormalities in their cones.
https://www.healthline.com/health/tetrachromacy

As you see, the evidence clearly shows the evolution of eyes by gradual stages.   In some phyla, there are even living examples.  No point in denying the facts.

Actually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all. It is not possible for you to know what was going on with the above until very recently when such things could even be known about or understood. You also have no idea how many other slight "changes" or variations may have taken place throughout the history of humanity which never amounted to anything, for the same reason. No one knew, understood, or even cared about such. If they did, few if any records survived from the apparent advanced civilizations that would have known such, which I do not believe your theory or you even allow for. As is always the case with evolutionists, you presume so very much about the past, in support of the very high regard you have for your observations of the present. We do not all share that very high regard though.

Continued from reply #262

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

Emphasis in quoted article below from link above is mine. My comments in blue.

QuoteComplexity can arise within a cell, too, because our molecular machinery makes mistakes. On occasion, it duplicates sections of DNA, entire genes, and even whole chromosomes, and these small changes to our genetic material can have dramatic effects. We saw how mutations can lead to a wide variety of phenotypic traits when we looked at how artificial selection has shaped dogs. These molecular accidents can even lead to complete innovation, like the various adaptations of flowering plants that I talked about in my last Evolution post. And as these innovations accumulate, species diverge, losing the ability to reproduce with each other and filling new roles in the ecosystem. While the creatures we know now might seem unfathomably intricate, they are the product of billions of years of slight variations accumulating.

No doubt any molecular machinery which came about by sheer accident, would make a great many mistakes unto annihilation and devolution according to the dictates of random chance, rather than the nonsensical evolution presented in this article of delusional grandeur.  The author of this article and evolutionists themselves as I see it, are majorly malfunctioning machinery. Infected with a mental disease called sin, they have become so enamored with themselves, that they worship and revere their own vain speculative imaginations as factual observable science. Thinking themselves wise, they have become self aggrandizing fools. Attributing the development of unimaginably complex biological machinery and intricacy far beyond anything thinking reasoning beings such ourselves have ever or will ever be able to construct or bring about, to random chance occurrences. A random chance I might add, that is not random chance at all, but rather a fairy tale of self aware, thinking, reasoning, organizing, cooperating, and choosing environment, atmosphere, cyanobacterias, cells, molecules, organisms, organs, and what have you. As the nonsense in this article under examination has clearly revealed. These people worship a god of their own imaginations.

The article again compares random chance mutations to processes conducted by thinking reasoning beings with exact intent and purpose in the artificial selection, or breeding of dogs if you will. As though the two had anything in common apart from change itself. The latter is completely separated from the realm of random chance evolution by the thinking reasoning beings with exact intent and purpose which brought it about. Comparison between the two is only considerable if the evolution being promoted includes and intelligent being directing said mutations, and beneficial mutations alone at that. Apart from this, comparison is nonsense.

Then there is that word innovation again, being used in connection with random chance. Unending fairy tale speculative imaginings in the so called scientific theory of evolution. Made by those who think so highly of their speculations, as to label them scientific facts. Nevertheless, millions are duped by them. So be it. Then the author admits of the unfathomable intricacies of creation, while denying it in the same breath as the result of the accumulation slight variations over billions of years. Of course she is obviously either not aware of, or purposely avoiding one aspect of the ever evolving theory of evolution, addressing more rapid change. There is a problem with the concept of survival among life forms taking countless millions of years to produce changes they would no doubt have need of much more rapidly under very likely changing environmental and or atmospheric conditions. This of course adding to the improbability of random chance to bring about such rapid changes. This is no real big deal when it is understood that evolutionists, like creationists, really operate upon faith more than observable scientific facts.

QuoteOf course, while I focused this post on how complexity arose, it's important to note that more complex doesn't necessarily mean better. While we might notice the eye and marvel at its detail, success, from the viewpoint of an evolutionary lineage, isn't about being the most elaborate. Evolution only leads to increases in complexity when complexity is beneficial to survival and reproduction. Indeed, simplicity has its perks: the more simple you are, the faster you can reproduce, and thus the more offspring you can have. Many bacteria live happy simple lives, produce billions of offspring, and continue to thrive, representatives of lineages that have survived billions of years. Even complex organisms may favor less complexity - parasites, for example, are known for their loss of unnecessary traits and even whole organ systems, keeping only what they need to get inside and survive in their host. Darwin referred to them as regressive for seemingly violating the unspoken rule that more complex arises from less complex, not the other way around. But by not making body parts they don't need, parasites conserve energy, which they can invest in other efforts like reproduction.When we look back in an attempt to grasp evolution, it may instead be the lack of complexity, not the rise of it, that is most intriguing.

A fit ending to an article which is really about how ridiculous the theory of random chance natural biological evolution is. Made glaringly obvious by the continuous application of terms and functions exercised by thinking reasoning self aware beings, to the supposed random chance occurrences and "motivations" if you will, of environment, atmosphere, cyanobacterias, cells, molecules, organisms, organs, and what have you. All of which belies said theory and points to a Creator with exact intent and purpose.

QuoteWho knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

Barbarian observes:
YE creationists, apparently.   How you guys got that idea, it's hard to say.  Not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence.

QuoteQuit playing the idiot. It is the article being critiqued suggesting the same, not me or creationists, as you well know.

Nope.  It doesn't say that in the article.  It's your idea, not theirs.

On the transitional tetrachromats turning up among humans:

QuoteActually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all.

Evidence shows we are:
In one study they found that most women with this condition did not demonstrate tetrachromacy on color vision tests – they still functionally were trichromats. This is likely due to the fact that the cones were not different enough. Although some hypothesize that the optic nerve or perhaps the brain combines the information from these distinct cones and treats them as one stream of color information. However, going against this hypothesis is the fact that 1 in 24 such women (according to one study) demonstrated four-dimensional (or tetrachromatic) color vision. This means that the optic nerve is capable of carrying tetrachromatic vision and the brain is capable of interpreting it.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/tetrachromacy-in-humans/

So the evolving tetrochromat vision depends on mutations involving one of the three existing cone types, producing two where there used to be just one.

Amo -

QuoteWho knew eyes were thinking reasoning entities within themselves, who knew, they needed to advance and therefore did so.

Barbarian observes:

QuoteYE creationists, apparently.   How you guys got that idea, it's hard to say.  Not in scripture, nor is it supported by evidence.

The ravings of willing and chosen ignorance. I have quoted the article from your own basically suggesting the above you quoted from me. You come back and twist and turn it into me and Creationists suggesting it because you say so. The hight of delusional behavior. Please do supply us with quotes from creationists to the effect that eyes and or other organs think, reason, or choose for themselves. Good luck with that one. Here, let me give you the quote from one of your own again, just to verify where this mode of thinking really comes from.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-the-rise-of-complexity/

QuoteOur eyes, as well as those of octopuses and fish, took a different approach than those of the arthropods, putting photo receptors into a pit, thus creating what is referred to as a camera-style eye. In the fossil record, eyes seem to emerge from eyeless predecessors rapidly, in less than 5 million years. But is it really possible that an eye like ours arose so suddenly? Yes, say biologists Dan-E. Nilsson and Susanne Pelger. They calculated a pessimistic guess as to how long it would take for small changes - just 1% improvements in length, depth, etc per generation - to turn a flat eyespot into an eye like our own. Their conclusion? It would only take about 400,000 years - a geological instant.

Creationists have no need to personify organs of the body, or cells, or molecules, as evolutionists apparently do. We know God created these things, they did not have to develop on their own, and thus require as it were attributes of thinking reasoning beings to ensure the same. This folly lands square upon evolutionists shoulders, not creationists.
Deny ad twist facts or statements all you want to your own detriment, it will change nothing.


Amo -

QuoteQuit playing the idiot. It is the article being critiqued suggesting the same, not me or creationists, as you well know.

Barb. -

QuoteNope.  It doesn't say that in the article.  It's your idea, not theirs.

It does literally say it, as demonstrated in the highlighted area of the quote once again above. Denying what is right in front of your face will not change that it is there.


Barb. -

QuoteOn the transitional tetrachromats turning up among humans:

Amo -

QuoteActually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all.

Barb. -

QuoteEvidence shows we are:
In one study they found that most women with this condition did not demonstrate tetrachromacy on color vision tests – they still functionally were trichromats. This is likely due to the fact that the cones were not different enough. Although some hypothesize that the optic nerve or perhaps the brain combines the information from these distinct cones and treats them as one stream of color information. However, going against this hypothesis is the fact that 1 in 24 such women (according to one study) demonstrated four-dimensional (or tetrachromatic) color vision. This means that the optic nerve is capable of carrying tetrachromatic vision and the brain is capable of interpreting it.
https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/tetrachromacy-in-humans/

So the evolving tetrochromat vision depends on mutations involving one of the three existing cone types, producing two where there used to be just one.

Now you are playing the idiot again, as you so often do. You pass yourself off as so smart, but repeatedly ignore the context and point of others posts, answering that which has not been posed to pass such off as an intelligent answer
addressing the same. Twist and turn, twist and turn. Let's add a little context to that which you quoted from me -

Amo -

QuoteActually you do not know if you are seeing changes or something new at all. It is not possible for you to know what was going on with the above until very recently when such things could even be known about or understood. You also have no idea how many other slight "changes" or variations may have taken place throughout the history of humanity which never amounted to anything, for the same reason. No one knew, understood, or even cared about such. If they did, few if any records survived from the apparent advanced civilizations that would have known such, which I do not believe your theory or you even allow for. As is always the case with evolutionists, you presume so very much about the past, in support of the very high regard you have for your observations of the present. We do not all share that very high regard though.

Why did you only quote the first sentence of the above statement, and not address the point made by it in its entirety at all? Is it not because there is not answer to the point made. The knowledge, know how, tech, or even desire to observe and or track such info did not even exist until at the very most the last century. You have no idea what happened before that time in relation to this or myriads of other possible apparent developments throughout time, which may or may not have resulted in actual change. As always your conclusions are highly dependent upon assumptions made in accordance with your faith. Denial will not change this fact.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200220130509.htm

Earth formed much faster than previously thought, new study shows

QuoteFebruary 20, 2020

Source:University of Copenhagen

Summary:By measuring iron isotopes, researchers have shown that our planet originally formed much faster than previously thought. This finding provides new insights on both planetary formation and the likelihood of water and life elsewhere in the universe.

The precursor of our planet, the proto-Earth, formed within a time span of approximately five million years, shows a new study from the Centre for Star and Planet Formation (StarPlan) at the Globe Institute at the University of Copenhagen.

On an astronomical scale, this is extremely fast, the researchers explain.
If you compare the solar system's estimated 4.6 billion years of existence with a 24-hour period, the new results indicate that the proto-Earth formed in what corresponds to about a minute and a half.....................

https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/life-on-earth-likely-started-at-least-4-1-billion-years-ago-much-earlier-than-scientists-had-thought

Life on Earth likely started at least 4.1 billion years ago — much earlier than scientists had thought

QuoteUCLA geochemists have found evidence that life likely existed on Earth at least 4.1 billion years ago — 300 million years earlier than previous research suggested. The discovery indicates that life may have begun shortly after the planet formed 4.54 billion years ago.

The research is published today in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Twenty years ago, this would have been heretical; finding evidence of life 3.8 billion years ago was shocking," said Mark Harrison, co-author of the research and a professor of geochemistry at UCLA. 

"Life on Earth may have started almost instantaneously," added Harrison, a member of the National Academy of Sciences. "With the right ingredients, life seems to form very quickly."............

As already stated several times on these boards, the continual trend of scientists finding that everything to do with evolution began and or developed further and further back in time, is the natural result of scientific inquiry moving toward biblical truth. That is, that all was created rapidly by God in six days and was fully developed and complex from the beginning. The order in which fossils are laid out is due to the flood, not evolutionary progression.

Now scientists are beginning to see that the world was formed much more rapidly than they thought, also exactly in line with biblical testimony, and life seems to have begun almost immediately and extremely rapidly. Wake up scientists! Apart from concerted efforts on your own part to prevent such, your own science will eventually rightly conclude that the scriptures are truth. Your own denial of the same in preference to your imagined superior intelligence has lead you astray.
God and His prophets have always been light years ahead of you.

Exo 20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Rev 14:6  And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

I never met a man or woman, who wasn't in some manner superior to me.  Unless we're hopelessly narcissistic, we all know this is true of all of us. 

And "ignorant" is a relative thing.   I'm rather ignorant of metallurgy, for example, but I probably know more about it than most people do, since I have some understanding of chemistry and physics beyond an introductory college course level.

Not long ago, I learned some things I didn't know about construction from someone here.    There's a secret to appearing to know everything:
Only talk about things you know.

Boring, but safe, if you want to appear to know it all.

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sat Mar 21, 2020 - 15:45:28
I never met a man or woman, who wasn't in some manner superior to me.  Unless we're hopelessly narcissistic, we all know this is true of all of us. 

And "ignorant" is a relative thing.   I'm rather ignorant of metallurgy, for example, but I probably know more about it than most people do, since I have some understanding of chemistry and physics beyond an introductory college course level.

Not long ago, I learned some things I didn't know about construction from someone here.    There's a secret to appearing to know everything:
Only talk about things you know.

Boring, but safe, if you want to appear to know it all.

What would we learn if we only discuss that which we already know well? How will we ever be convinced that we are wrong if and when we are, if we will not engage in debate with those of different beliefs, opinions, or disciplines? Knowing something, doesn't make that something true or right. One can study false religions or theories and know them well, but that knowledge will never make them true or right.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6043177/Animal-kingdom-OLDER-previously-thought-scientists-reveal.html

Quote'We need to rethink evolution': Animal kingdom is OLDER than previously thought and scientists need to look further back in time to understand the diversity of species on Earth


Scientists say the older ideas on early animal evolution may need to be revised
Research suggests the animal kingdom is much older than previously thought
It was diversifying well before the Cambrian explosion 541 million years ago
Dr Jennifer Hoyal Cuthill explains why animals on Earth are being re-examined

English naturalist Charles Darwin published the 'Origin Of Species' more than 150 years ago.

Darwinian evolution is a prominent scientific theory which describes how lifeforms develop through a process known as natural selection.

However, the latest research suggests some of the widely-accepted ideas around how animal species evolved on Earth need to be revised.

The latest findings suggest the animal kingdom we occupy is much older than previously thought and was diversifying well before previous estimates, which placed the arrival of most animal species during the Cambrian explosion 541 million years ago.......................................

Yes, the animal kingdom diversified far closer to the beginning than the theory of evolution allows for, as in right from the start as the holy scriptures testify. Deep time scenarios according to the same theory are way off due to lack of information regarding the original state of things, and the major changes to our environment and atmosphere brought about by the global flood denied by evolutionists. Though now, some of their theories do include massive global flooding due to asteroid impacts. If there were enough time, their own science would lead them to the truths of God's word concerning both creation and the flood, if they would only care to accept it.

https://cosmosmagazine.com/biology/amoebas-diversified-much-earlier-than-thought

QuoteAmoebas diversified much earlier than thought

Amoebas diversified at least 750 million years ago, far earlier than previously thought, researchers have revealed.

The finding, from a team led by Daniel Lahr of the University of São Paulo in Brazil, challenges existing theory about life during the time. Known as the late Precambrian period, it was thought to feature only a small number of unicellular lineages, including undifferentiated proto-amoebae and photosynthetic algae known as stromatolites.

The new study revealed eight new ancestral lineages of Thecamoebae, the largest group in the amoeba domain. This newly discovered diversity has implications for understanding how microorganisms evolved on Earth.

"We show that diversification apparently already existed in the Precambrian and that it probably occurred at the same time as ocean oxygenation," says Lahr.................................

On and on it goes. How many times will they discover over and over again that everything seems to have "evolved" to a higher and higher degree further and further back in time, before they will properly conclude that it was all there from the beginning. Creation, not evolution is the eventual outcome of non biased scientific research, observation, and theory.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/evidence-that-humans-had-farms-30000-years-earlier-than-previously-thought/

QuoteEvidence that ancient farms had very different origins than previously thought

It's an idea that could transform our understanding of how humans went from small bands of hunter-gatherers to farmers and urbanites. Until recently, anthropologists believed cities and farms emerged about 9,000 years ago in the Mediterranean and Middle East. But now a team of interdisciplinary researchers has gathered evidence showing how civilization as we know it may have emerged at the equator, in tropical forests. Not only that, but people began altering their environments for food and shelter about 30,000 years earlier than we thought.

For centuries, archaeologists believed that ancient people couldn't live in tropical jungles. The environment was simply too harsh and challenging, they thought. As a result, scientists simply didn't look for clues of ancient civilizations in the tropics. Instead, they turned their attention to the Middle East, where we have ample evidence that hunter-gatherers settled down in farming villages 9,000 years ago during a period dubbed the "Neolithic revolution." Eventually, these farmers' offspring built the ziggurats of Mesopotamia and the great pyramids of Egypt. It seemed certain that city life came from these places and spread from there around the world...................

Yes, as the real evidence increasingly suggests, created humanity was very capable right from the beginning. Those chasing a false narrative have been finding only what they have been looking for exactly because that is all they have been looking for. Nevertheless, continued research has and will continue to unavoidably lead to conclusions more in line with scripture for all who will care to go exactly where the evidence truly leads. Humanity was social, intelligent, and capable of building towns and cities from the get go, just as scripture testifies.

Part of the problem is that jungles tend to erase human activity rather rapidly.    One interesting bit of evidence suggests that marijuana might have been the first cultivated crop...

Cannabis plants are believed to have evolved on the steppes of Central Asia, specifically in the regions that are now Mongolia and southern Siberia, according to Warf. The history of cannabis use goes back as far as 12,000 years, which places the plant among humanity's oldest cultivated crops, according to information in the book "Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years" (Springer, 1980).
https://www.livescience.com/48337-marijuana-history-how-cannabis-travelled-world.html

Quote from: The Barbarian on Sun Mar 22, 2020 - 11:46:53
Part of the problem is that jungles tend to erase human activity rather rapidly.    One interesting bit of evidence suggests that marijuana might have been the first cultivated crop...

Cannabis plants are believed to have evolved on the steppes of Central Asia, specifically in the regions that are now Mongolia and southern Siberia, according to Warf. The history of cannabis use goes back as far as 12,000 years, which places the plant among humanity's oldest cultivated crops, according to information in the book "Marihuana: The First Twelve Thousand Years" (Springer, 1980).
https://www.livescience.com/48337-marijuana-history-how-cannabis-travelled-world.html

Of course, that makes perfect sense. First we grew weed, smoked some and got the munchies, which led directly to growing food in order to satiate or gratify our munchies. Now that is evolution in process.

Quoted article below is from link provided above. My comments are in blue.

https://study.com/academy/lesson/evidence-for-rapid-evolution-speciation.html

QuoteAlthough we usually think of evolution as taking thousands of years to occur, sometimes it can occur quite quickly. In this lesson, we'll look at evidence for rapid evolution and examine how this process can lead to speciation.

The theory of evolution encompasses hundreds of thousands, millions, hundreds of millions, and even billions of years. The above opening statement, is really an allusion to recent changes in evolutionary thought, without addressing the same. The non stop and ever changing face of the evolutionary theory due to ever increasing "evidence" being discovered and therefore increased knowledge observed from the same, tends toward exposing the fragility of a theory once thought to be rather solid.

There is no escaping the effect of increasing evidence of rapid evolution upon the theory itself, the deep time scenario it speculates, and the movement toward creation and or design it suggests. Passing over the topic quickly and lightly, and picking up right on evolutionary presumptuous cue, is simply pretending that what was has not been effected by what is.

Rapid evolution will of course have serious implications upon the theories deep time scenarios, and will add to the ever increasing trend of evidence sliding evolution toward creation. The dual manifestation of complexity appearing to be further and further back in time, and of evolution taking place far more rapidly than previously thought, are trends which are not away from but rather toward creation and or design. One suggests complexity from the beginning, and the other far less time involved in the changes which have occurred.

Both creation and evolution allow for change. The former as God Himself designed according to His foreknowledge of the dramatic changes even He Himself would bring about in this world through the flood. The latter according to random chance or at least undirected mutations or what have you. The probabilities of which decrease with less time applicable according to apparent rapid evolution, and complexity itself established within said diminishing time scale. Less time, plus more complexity further back in time, is more suggestive of design and or creation, than deep time evolution. 

QuoteWhat Is Rapid Evolution?

What comes to mind when you think of evolution? You might be thinking of the famous transition between dinosaurs and birds that took place millions of years ago, or the common ancestor that led to both humans and modern apes. These examples took place over millions of years, leading many scientists to believe that evolution is a very slow process.

The above trick is that pulled by evolutionists all the time. That is, lumping presently transpiring scientifically observable events or change in this incident, with unobserved theory pertaining to eons past. The dinosaur to chicken and something or other to humans and apes being their theory regarding the past of course. The details of which are highly contested among themselves let alone flatly denied by some of their own and many others.

Yes many, to be honest most, evolutionary scientists believed evolution was a very slow process. Thus the deep time scenario which has always been attached to it. This once seemingly solid foundation is now of course under revision due to observations which dictate otherwise. Change can come about rapidly, more rapidly no doubt, then evolutionists are just now beginning to allow for. Such apparently complex systems in place conducive to rapid change, are far more likely to be by design than random chance of course. This is just one more piece of apparent designed ingenuity in the extremely intricate and complex creatures of this planet, that makes random chance or undirected evolution that much more unlikely. Which staunch defenders of the evolutionary faith will ignore of course, while continuing on their marry blind faith way. So be it. 

QuoteHowever, scientists are finding more and more examples of rapid evolution, or evolution that happens over a few generations. Although a few generations might seem like a long time to the average person, in terms of evolution, this is incredibly fast change.

Scientists are seeing this happen in particular in populations that are exposed to human intervention. For example, many types of insects are being exposed to insecticides. Rapid evolution is taking place that is creating new, insecticide resistant populations of organisms within just a few generations.

Again, change, evolution is not. The theory of evolution incorporates change into its deep time scenario of simple to complex life through mutations. That being described above is not change due to mutations, but rather change by way of adaption to a changing environment. The catalyst is the changing environment, not mutation. One would think such changes probably begin in the immune systems which God placed within His creatures to address the problems of changing environment. Creatures apparently already have the built in ability to adapt and change. This of course is more likely to be the result of design than random chance. The radical change of environment brought about by a global flood would therefore cause a huge reaction of mutations among all creatures adapting to their changed environment. The evidence of change both from the past and present therefore, does not cause a contradiction to the biblical creation or flood accounts. To the contrary, widespread adaptive change among species would no doubt be sped up exponentially among the far fewer animals left after the flood in a radically changed environment. 

Apparently all life has always had the ability to change or adapt to the changes which occur in their environment. This is observable scientific fact in that we observe many changes between todays plants and animals, and those of the past, including a widespread reduction in size alone in the fossil record. As is unquestionably obvious, the earths environment in the past supported plants and animals of a much larger size and variety than now exists. This is among other apparent changes as well. Evolutionists of course admit of the same, since their entire theory is dependent upon change from simple to complex. As also observable change is taking place right now in front of their faces. Though evolutionists do understand that all change is not from simple to more complex according to the evidence, their theory is completely dependent upon change from simple to complex. Creationists though, allow easily for devolution as it were, according to their understanding that creation was at its best from the beginning.

There is no good scientific reason to just presume that the ability to adapt and change to a changing environment, also just happened to be in all creatures who themselves apparently just happened. This is simple absurdity upon absurdity.  Which of course the theory of natural biological random chance evolution is.

QuoteSimilarly, bacteria populations can evolve in just hours of being exposed to antibiotics. The new antibiotic resistant populations of bacteria are of serious concern for medicine. It's not just small organisms like bacteria or insects that are going through rapid evolution either. Populations of Chinook salmon are experiencing rapid evolution towards a small body size as they experience pressure from hunting, and the Atlantic killifish is evolving resistance to pollutants that would normally kill fish in the area in just a few generations.

Evolution like this can lead to speciation, or the formation of new species, in just a few generations. Today, we're going to look at some of the first experiments that documented rapid evolution and subsequent speciation.

The above is more of the same. The ability to adapt and change at all levels of life is not more evidence of ever increasingly improbable undirected random chance evolution, but quite obviously the result of intelligent design. It makes no sense at all, to continually ignore the exponentially developing improbability of random chance to produce the ever increasing amount of complexity, associated with the ever increasing amount of observable evidence, being made apparent by ever advancing tech. and corresponding knowledge being accumulated over time. Let's get a grip upon the reality of what observable science is telling us today. Random chance undirected natural biological evolution simply cannot even begin to address the levels of complexity and interrelation scientists along with all of the rest of us are observing today. All such observations are leading exactly to one unavoidable conclusion, design and or creation! This is not to even address again, the obvious implications which rapid evolution suggest concerning the theories deep time scenarios.

Even if such leads to the discovery of observable change eventually resulting in new species, this in no way shape or form would suggest evolution as the mechanism of our existence over design or creation. To the contrary again, design or creation are far more probable explanations than random chance rapidly leading to such extreme heights of complexity and interrelation we observe from the simplest levels of life, to the entire global community and beyond. Willing abject ignorance alone, could determine the latter with no thought or reference to the former. Such is blind faith over reason and logic. Random chance, undirected natural biological evolution at its core, is nothing more or less than nature worship. The scriptures themselves rightly address this issue.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.   

The above is a fit description of the theory of evolution which is nothing more or less than nature worship, and the present state of the world in relation to the same morally degrading theory. So be it.

QuoteGeographic Isolation of Fruit Flies

In 1989, Diane Dodd published one of the first accounts of rapid speciation by studying fruit flies in the laboratory. Dodd and her colleagues collected fruit flies from a natural population in Bryce Canyon, Utah. In the lab, she separated the fruit flies into two populations, modeling a natural phenomenon known as geographic isolation.

During geographic isolation, one species becomes separated by a physical barrier, such as a lake or canyon, into two separate populations. Over time, different traits are selected for, and the populations change in such a way that they can no longer interbreed if they are reunited, thus forming two unique species. Geographic isolation is a common mechanism of speciation in natural populations.

The two fruit fly populations were kept in separate cages and were given different food substrates. One population was given a starch-based medium to eat, and the other was given a maltose-based medium to eat. Dodd kept the fruit flies in these separate cages with the different mediums for several generations. Each medium is somewhat stressful to the fruit flies and requires changes in their genetic adaptation to be successful. For example, the starch-based medium flies increased Amylase activity in their gut, which was necessary to break down the starch. Dodd took this as evidence that there was a genetic change in the populations.

To confirm the divergence, Dodd then mixed the two populations and looked for interbreeding about one year after the initial separation. However, when the two populations were mixed, she noticed a mating preference for flies that were grown on the same media. The geographic isolation had created genetic changes in the population that prevented the two fly populations from mating, creating reproductive isolation. Over time, this would lead to a greater isolation and divergence of the two populations into unique species.

There it is again, evolutionists confounding that which is observed science, with that which is their theory. No divergence of the two populations into unique species was or has been observed. Change took place due to isolation and changed environment or diet. Change, evolution is not. Nevertheless, if such is eventually observed to create a distinct species from the original, this would not in any way shape or form suggest evolution over creation as the mechanism of our existence.

As already stated, it is far more likely that such ability is the result of forethought and design, than random chance. Only minds leaning toward the most improbable of scenarios would determine such against one of the most plain and simple observed facts. You simply do not get something from nothing, and less does not equal, or produce more by adding time to the scenario. Super small changes according to random chance over eons of time just doesn't cut it, when addressing the possible mechanisms of our existence. Which is why observable science is now revealing much more rapid change likely, which is much more in accordance with the biblical creation and the ability to adapt and change according to design, than imaginative speculations of random chance mixed with deep time unto our present state of existence.

This is not to mention again of course, the obvious implications leaning toward the creation and flood accounts of scripture these new evidences increasingly suggest. The creation account clearly establishes complexity from the beginning, which would of course include the designed ability to adapt and change according to the foreknowledge of God. The flood account would establish the radical environmental changes which would propel adaption or change. It would also create an increased amount of isolation among plants and animals as they dispersed throughout the earth with very small populations such as those of the experiments referred to above no doubt, as they replenished the earth. This could also explain the differences we see within humanity itself in the fossil record and today. No deep time evolutionary theories required. To the contrary, such are chosen by many as their faith, not as a result of observable scientific reality as so many evolutionists claim.

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Barbarian,

Questions please.

What was the very first living organism(?) that evolvedinto another, then another?

Did this original organism(?) (if that is the correct term) start the evolution into all things over the multiple megaannums,  gigaannums, or even teraannums ............?

I am taking a general assumption that plant organisms only evlove plants and that animal organisms
follow the animal kingdom?

I am simply curious about the origins ... as in original origins of what the scientific community has to say about such.