Likewise, of course. That's the rub. Evolution can jumble, and rejumble, and obtain any sequence, with time. But that jumbling doesn't explain why certain sequences of proteins, behave a certain way. That ability, apparently, was already present within those molecules. Again, it's comparable to, (as you also like to compare it to), a computer algo where you give all the commands, functions, etc. of a programming language to the algo; and with time, it can randomly jumble together a working program. But that jumbling doesn't account for the ability of the commands and functions themselves to inherently 'do stuff.' So again, you nor any of your links address this. The article I linked where they 'built' a cell, recognizes this mystery. Simply, organic soup and randomness plus time doesn't account for the behaviors that are unlocked when specific components of the soup are arranged in a specific sequence. Just as there is with a computer, in the computer comparison; in the biological comparison, there also appears to be a kernel behind it all; a framework; an operating system; an intelligence. Enjoyed the discussion.
Scientists just like everyone else, are entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts Evolution is a fact
LOL? really?? If you take your face out of that bible and Educate yourself a little... Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution. https://ncse.ngo/gravity-its-only-theory Hope that helps
Hmmm, do I detect some suppression of truth going on by attempting to make the “Theory” of evolution into a fact? One thing needs to be clarified. Creationists DO believe in microevolution, as defined here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/microevolution comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level Microevolution can be observed and repeated in trials. Macroevolution has never been observed and is not able to be repeated in a trial. The difference here is huge. Microevolution takes place within the species level and the changes that come about are merely a rearrangement of already designed factors. However, this type of microevolution is not capable of creating a macroevolutionary event, meaning that it cannot cross the boundaries of “kinds” that are the original dividers between subsets of God’s living creations. And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. Genesis 1:24 Changes on the scale from bacteria turning into mammals, such as elephants or lions is macroevolution. This requires all kinds of new structures composed of many different cooperating parts and need to be defined in the genome before they can appear. There is no known mechanism for how this can be accomplished. Macroevolution has NEVER been observed. A change in the beak size of a finch is NOT macroevolution. Do you doubt this? Why do you doubt this? Is it because of what you have been told? Could it be that you have been told something that does not have facts to back it up? The scientific method is based on observable and repeatable experiments. However, macroevolution has NEVER been observed and therefore is outside of the scientific method. This makes macroevolution nothing more than a faith-based philosophy, thus outside the realm of true science. This clip is really funny. The professors and students stumble over their words and get stumped when asked to provide a single example for macroevolution. They cannot provide even one!!!! The following are the evolutionary professors interviewed: PZ Myers, PhD, Associate Professor, Biology, University of Minnesota Morris Craig Stanford, PhD, Professor, Biological Sciences and Anthropology, USC Peter Nonacs, PhD, Professor, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, UCLA Going back to our discussion on the definition of the word “Theory,” a scientific theory is not a fact and it can be proven or rejected. The following quotes were taken from here: https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html The University of California, Berkeley, defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses." Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists' explanations and interpretations of the facts ____________ A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time.
The trolls are conflating The Theory of Evolution with respect to the origins of life, vs. with respect to characteristics of a species being able to change with time. It's obvious you are discussing the origins of life. In that regard, The Theory is just a theory. They wanted to confuse that issue by mentioning that it is deemed "proven" that a species can change, however subtly, over time. Simply put: a living species can evolve, subtly, over time. But it is not proven that life evolved from non-living, organic soup.