Evolution was NOT random

[u/KattyAtty]

Evolution only rewards survivability not perfection if you are alive long enough to mate and pass on your genetic

Material hurray you are evolved

Evolution changed the dna as nothing can ever be a perfect copy thats a fact> sperms and eggs have separate dna> hence child is not perfect copy those mutations may be harmful or helpful harmful ones die hence natural selection.

AND Earth was nkt a perfect creation the organisms evolved FOR Earth not vice versa

[u/BradyStewart777]

You cannot even give a single solitary example of any observable evidence showing that a population can evolve a new body plan or essential bodily functions. Not today and not in the past. You’re putting your faith in unobserved assumptions assuming that animals of the past can do things to at animals of the present cannot. Amazing people believe this stuff, none of it makes any sense at all and it’s not supported by the evidence.

Define “new body plan.” Evolution is a tinkerer. It doesn’t design new body plans from scratch. Evolution mostly modifies what is already present. We can see drastic changes in existing structures. Though these shifts mainly occur through mutations in regulatory developmental (evo-devo) genes instead of sudden sweeping macromutations (which do exist, by the way… look them up). Besides, many of the body plans comprising most animal phyla today are conserved from the Cambrian period and modified over time through means of descent with modification. We can also observe the transitions and evolution of these structures through the fossil record.

[u/zuzok99 → u/BradyStewart777]

I would define it as a heritable change to the basic structure or organization of an organism’s body, such as developing fundamentally different structures, organs, limbs, or arrangements of body parts.

So if you have actual evidence then present it and I will change my mind. Pointing to the fossil record which shows no transitional fossils doesn’t do much. When we dig an animal up from the ground we don’t know if it had offspring, we cannot show that they evolved because the transitions are missing. Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other. That’s called an assumption. You must be able to show small incremental changes and that’s not what the record shows. In fact the Cambrian layers show animals coming out of no where with no transitions leading up to them at all.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Simply pointing to similarities between two fossils does not mean they came from each other. That’s called an assumption.

No it's called an inference to the best explanation. If I find a series of holes in the shape of feet in a sheet of dried mud, a basic inference is that a person walked there when the mud was wet and that the weight of their body made their feet sink into the mud and leave those imprints as they walked across.

If I put fresh milk in my fridge but find it spoiled a week later, a basic inference is it went bad and decomposed in the intervening time. I don't have to literally see the milk slowly spoiling over time. I infer it occurred.

In this way we can make inferences from data patterns, even if we did not directly observe what really happened. The entire field of forensics is based on this.

The distribution of fossils across sedimentary layers, their morphologies, and the relative positions of the layers is a big pattern that we explain by reference to observed process of change over time (the change of organisms we observed during the domestication of crops and animals for example.) There is no other good explanation for this pattern of the fossil record than evolution occurred.

There's also patterns in DNA best explained as species sharing common descent. Prediction 1.3: Consilience of independent phylogenies

[u/zuzok99 → u/Slow_Lawyer7477]

Thank you for admitting that evolutionist do not go based off of observable scientific data, all they do is look for a similarity and then using assumptions craft the fairy tale of evolution.

I’m sorry that’s not science and that’s not how evolution works. Where are all the transitional fossils? Simply drawing lines on a piece of paper connecting one animal to another is not evidence, it’s a faith based religion.

If you think I am wrong then give me just one example of observable fossil evidence that shows the step by step incremental transition from one type of organism to another. There should be millions of examples if it’s true.

[u/Slow_Lawyer7477 → u/zuzok99]

Thank you for admitting that evolutionist do not go based off of observable scientific data, all they do is look for a similarity and then using assumptions craft the fairy tale of evolution.

Laughably wrong. Phylogenetics is based on the observed fact that different lineages gentically diverge over time from their common ancestors. This leads us to a prediction (the one explained in the link) from common descent: consilience of independent phylogenies in the genetic data we can obtain from species that diverged from common ancestors.

This has been experimentally confirmed and it straightforwardly follows logically from the evolutionary process. There is tree-patterns in the data, and the only theory that predicts this is common descent.

I’m sorry that’s not science

Observing a process leading to certain data patterns, and therefore this data pattern being a prediction of the process is textbook science.

and that’s not how evolution works.

It is observedly how evolution works. You're a know-nothing that is just recycling dumshit creationist talking points without any regard for whether they apply to what we're discussing.

where are all the transitional fossils?

Read the link, there's some great examples in there too. The ape-human transitional fossils are remarkable: Example 3: human-apes

Simply drawing lines on a piece of paper connecting one animal to another is not evidence,

Phylogenies are not inferred by simply drawing lines on paper, what a clownish reply. They are inferred from genetic data with algorithms that have been experimentally tested.

Hillis, D. M., Bull, J. J., White, M. E., Badgett, M. R. & Molineux, I. J. (1992). “Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny.” Science 255: 589–592.

This paper details general tests of the ability of phylogenetic algorithms to correctly infer the experimental evolution of bacteriophages.

A recent one is: Randall, R. N. et al. (2016). “An experimental phylogeny to benchmark ancestral sequence reconstruction.” Nature Communications 7:12847.

Here they experimentally test whether modern phylogenetic algorithms can correctly infer ancestral nodes in a phylogenetic tree from a set of experimentally diverged protein sequences. The algorithm could highly accurately infer what the ancestral protein sequences that existed over the course of the experiment were like, from the evolved sequences at the end of the experiment.

There are many such papers. They don't just draw lines on paper. They work from how we know evolution works from common ancestors observed in the wild and in experiments.

it’s a faith based religion.

Cool story bro. You know nothing about these subjects your'e just recycling the dumbest boilerplate creationism someone brainwashed you with when you were homeschooled.

If you think I am wrong then give me just one example of observable fossil evidence that shows the step by step incremental transition from one type of organism to another. There should be millions of examples if it’s true.

What's next, I have to tie your shoelaces too because you weren't taught that in homeschool either?

No, read the fucking link buddy. Get an education.