God used Evolution to 'create' man

[one.opinion]

12 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You have exposed your true character and that is good enough for me.

Spare the theatrics. You offer snide derision and insults with nearly every post and expect unending graciousness in return. Shameful.

 

2 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

When I yawn, it is because the post says nothing new, just the usual evo rhetoric.

False. You were offered evidence from a March 2019 paper. This is not "usual evo rhetoric", but recently-published evidence. And you disdainfully yawn at it - and have the audacity to feign the high road about "true character". Rubbish.

[omega2xx]

On 12/6/2019 at 9:44 PM, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

You've been reminded that ancient Christians like St. Augustine demonstrated that the "yom" of the creation story could not represent literal days.   No point in denying the fact.

 

No one said he was.   I'm just pointing out that Augustine, an ancient Christian showed that the "yom" of the creation story could not be literal days.   His views were widely published, and no one thought to contradict him.    He is now considered an authoritative theologian by all three major branches of Christianity.   And of course, it shows that your assumption that creationism was an orthodox belief, is incorrect.

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

YE creationism is a modern invention, of the Seventh-Day Adventists.   Until mid 20th century, most creationists were OE.   That was the creationism at the Scopes Trial, for example.   Would you like me to show you?

Barbarian observes:

Most creationists are not deists.    And of course, theistic evolutionists are theists.   Do you have a point?

You've been badly misled.   If you have to argue that theists are deists, isn't that a pretty good clue for you?   If you were actually a theistic evolutionist, you would have known this.   Someone taught you deism and convinced you that was Christianity.

Augustine, as orthodox a Christian as you could hope for, pointed out that Genesis itself says that there could not be literal days.   However, there have always been dissenters from the prevailing view of Christians, and those dissenters are no less orthodox; the nature of the creation story is not a required doctrine for Christians.    You can hold either view and still be considered an orthodox Christian.

You aren't God, and you don't speak for Him.   God makes it clear what you need to do to be saved, and your opinion on evolution isn't one of those things.   You're adding doctrines to His word, and that is a very, very unwise thing to do. 

  Th[e] tree surely did not spring forth suddenly in [a mature] size and form, but rather went through a process of growth with which we are familiar. ...[It] took its shape as it [gradually] developed with all its parts. ... One [form of tree] comes from the other [form of tree], therefore, in succession, but both come from earth and not earth from them. Earth, then, is prior and is their source. The same is true ofanimals.”

St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram

Remarkably consistent with the evidence we now have.   Not modern evolutionary theory, but Augustine was aware of Genesis as a description of a creative process, developing from the initial, instantaneous creation event.

I already showed you that YE creationism was invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.   In the 1800s, we see evangelicals like Spurgeon (Baptist) describing the traditional Christian understanding...

But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

C.H. Spurgeon Sermon #30

Even well into the 20th century, evangelicals continued to think in terms of an old Earth.   This was the creationism presented at the Scopes Trial, for example:

The trial judge had prohibited the defense from using scientists as witnesses. So, on the trial's seventh day, the defense team called Bryan to testify as an expert on the Bible. Darrow subjected Bryan to a withering cross-examination. He got Bryan to say that Creation was not completed in a week, but over a period of time that "might have continued for millions of years."

http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3390

See above.   You're wrong.    Now that you realize it, set your pride aside, let the truth in.

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

There was no need to say it, it was understood to be literal. If it was not literal, they would  have said so.  You have it backwards.

You've been reminded that ancient Christians like St. Augustine demonstrated that the "yom" of the creation story could not represent literal days.   No point in denying the fact.

WE don't deny they said it , but it was only their interpretation and none of them demonstrated it.  I  have show you that when "yom" is used with a number it ALWAYS means 24 hours, and there are many verses using "yom" that can only mean 1 day.

And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam.

Anyone who believes the Bible is inerrant knows for sure.  It was 1 day according to what God tells us.  If man needs to change that, let them offer something beside a their interpretation.  Can you provide any evidence it was millions of years?  Can you explain how plant life survived millions of years with no sun?

Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.

Man say that,not the Bible.  The orthodox view in Augustine's time was that day was 24 hours, so he was not orthodox about that doctrine and being orthodox does not guarantee your interpretations are correct.  I have also proved from God's inspired and inerrant word that when used with a number, yom always means 24 hours.

It would also be helpful for you to know that all Biblical allegories are based on actual, literal events---Gal 4:24---2 Sam 12:1-7

Love, peace, joy

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian suggests:

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

There was no need to say it, it was understood to be literal. 

But you can't show us any evidence for it?   I've already shown you that it's absurd to call for literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   And no, imagining a big light in sky won't help you.    You're just insisting you're right, without any reason to believe you.

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Anyone who believes the Bible is inerrant knows for sure.  

So when the Bible says that pi is equal to three or that God actually thought that men could build a tower that would reach heaven, those are literally true?   That's what the modern doctrine of inerrancy says.    

 

 

.

[omega2xx]

3 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian observes:

Yes.   That's what I showed you before.   Dr. Wood and Dr. Wise admit that the evidence shows common descent.   They are honest enough to say that the evidence shows one thing and their interpretations of the Bible say another.

He cited dozens of examples.  Do you think no one noticed?   Didn't you notice?  Perhaps you didn't.    I'll put it up one more time for you...

They were not examples with any verifiable scientific evidence.  Anyone can cite examples.  That does not make them valid.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

Let me help you---someone saying something does not make it true.  If you want to accept what ehy sasy by faith alone, ber my guest.

Regarding your cite of moon landing deniers:

Which is no worse than believing the Earth is flat or that there is no evolution.    They just have different presuppositions than you do.

To try and link most Christian with believe in a flat earth is about as absurd as you can get.  It is an act of desperation when you can't prove any of Darwin's doctrines.I don't have any presuppositions about what the Bible says.

If you said that, one person here said it.   Are you arguing with yourself?

Technically, it's an error; a new doctrine that is not supported by scripture or tradition.

It is not an error on your say so and it is not a new doctrine

Barbarian explains:

No, that's wrong.   Science is inductive, inferring the rules by observing the particulars.   Epistemologically, science never "proves" anything.    It merely collects enough evidence to make the conclusion very, very certain.

All science is not inductive.  And it is foolish to say Science has not PROVED there is more than one blood type. hich is paently obvious.  That is the problem you have by believing  what some so-called scientist say by faith alone.

No.  It's established all of those things, but it has not proven them.    It can't because it has no path to logical certainty.   Here's a good, not too technical explanation:

DUUH.  What can be proved by observation and being repeated and never changing, doesn't need a logical certainty.   Logi is necessary when the results can't be proved.

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

Logic is not a closed system because qualified people in logic, disagree at times.  Logic can't be proved.

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

If the are proven, who proves them?  SCIENTISTS.  You are contradicting yourself.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final.  There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science.  The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives.  Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Science saying there is more than one blood type and there is, PROVES YOU ARE WRONG.

Go to the site and read all of it.   You'll come out of it, with a better understanding.

Barbarian observes:

Evolutionary theory has had changes, but nothing is fundamentally different.    All four of Darwin's points have been repeatedly verified. 

If you forget your faith  in Darwin and put it  in God, you will come out with a better understanding.  Talk, talk, talk.  Post the evidence that proves "Darwin's point have been verified.

Variation in Populations

In every species there is variation. This variability occurs even between related individuals.

Of course there is variation in the traits based on the gene pool of the parents, but you can'[t cite one example of any offspring jumping the genetic barrier and becoming s different species.  The mutation that cause the kid to become an albino, does not change its species.  It will be the exact same species as its parents, grand parents, great grand parents, all the way back to Adam.

Inherited Traits

Each species has traits determined by inheritance. Inherited traits passed from parents to offspring determine the characteristics of the offspring. Inherited traits that improve the odds of survival are more likely to be passed on to subsequent generations.

Not true.  There is no gene that gives the offspring better odds of surviving.  Natural selection is another farce invented by evolutionists, and you can't prove it.  God has built in some traits in the gene pool of some species that gives it a better chance of survival:  the    snsw rabbit, the skunk for example.  Those traits are not selective, they come out in every offspring.

Offspring Compete

Most species produce more offspring each year than the environment can support. This high birth rate results in competition among the members of the species for the limited natural resources available. The struggle for resources determines the mortality rate within a species. Only the surviving individuals breed and pass on their genes to the next generation.

Another big DUUH.  Survival does not translate into becoming a new species.

Survival of the Fittest

Some individuals survive the struggle for resources. These individuals reproduce, adding their genes to the succeeding generations. The traits that helped these organisms to survive will be passed on to their offspring. This process is known as “natural selection.” Conditions in the environment result in the survival of individuals with specific traits which are passed through heredity to the next generation.

There are  no traits that will cause one species to become a different species.  The offspring can't choose what traits it gets.  That is determined by the genes in the pool of its parents.

https://sciencing.com/darwins-four-main-ideas-evolution-8293806.html

These have been repeatedly verified.    The gene studies of Darwin's finches on Daphne Major, for example, shows how allele frequencies vary according to selective pressures.    A study of Adriatic island lizards confirms new features evolving over time, (in this case, a few decades) when the selective pressures change.    In this case, a new digestive organ, among other things. 

In none of the case you mentioned resulted in a new species, only in some variation within the species. The finches remained finches and the lizards remained lizards.  It might help if you reviews what evolution preaches---species evolve into a different species.  Would you like me to teach you more?

  Would you like to learn more about these?

No I know enough science to know you are wrong.  I hate to confuse you with the facts, but that is how it is   for those with understanding.

See above.   As you learned, even honest creationists admit the fact.   Dr. Wise cites dozens of examples.   No point in denying the fact.

There is no point in denying facts.  However what someone believes does not make it a fact.  You don't seem to be able to get your mind about that FACT.  Why don't you believe the scientist who reject what he says?

Their big advantage over you is, they are real scientists.   They actually know about the issue; they've studied it for a very long time; each has a relevant PhD, and each honestly admits the evidence, preferring to accept their own interpretations of Genesis instead.    So you can see why they have vastly more credibility than you do.

That's why I don't rely  on my knowledge,  I rely one scientist who are as qualified as he is and many of hem will be more qualified.  Why don't you believe them? There knoowleddge of science far exceeds yours.

Barbarian offers:

It was a unicellular prokaryote.   And and over time, prokaryotes evolved, likely by endosymbiosis, into eukaryotes.   Do we have evidence for endosymbiotic evolution?   We have an observed example.   Would you like to learn about that?

I'll take that as a "yes."   So here's why:

In the oldest rocks of the earth, we find only unicellular prokaryotes.   Small, bacteria-like cells, with no nucleus.

I hate to burst your bubble, actually I don't, but you do not know what the oldest rocks are.  If you understood the problem with all of the current testing methods,, except for C 14, you would  not make such a statement.  Second who were the mommy and daddy of he life form, or did it just pop into existence out of nothing, and it certainly could not have all of the necessary genes to explain the traits in several millions of life forms, and there is no way you can' explin how it could have obtained them.

The earliest direct evidence of life on Earth are microfossils of microorganisms permineralized in 3.465-billion-year-old Australian Apex chert rocks.

Not according to the only true source---What God says in His inspired and  inerrant word.  If you are a Christian, why do you believe Darwin instead of God?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

It took a very, very long time for the next major step to eukaryotes.    Maybe 2 billion years.    But eventually it happened.  We know it's a matter of endosymbiosis, because the evidence is still here.  In our cells, we have (for example) mitochondria, the organelles that now provide energy conversions in almost all eukaryotes (a few eukaryotes have lost them.)   They look like little bacteria, and they have their own, bacterial DNA which is quite different from eukaryote DNA.  

So do we have proof this can actually happen?   Yes, it's been directly observed:

Then produce the evidence.  You can't prove one thing you have just said.  It is he usual evo rhetoric.

Trends Cell Biol. 1995 Mar;5(3):137-40.

Bacterial endosymbiosis in amoebae.

Jeon KW¹. Dept of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA.

Abstract

The large, free-living amoebae are inherently phagocytic. They capture, ingest and digest microbes within their phagolysosomes, including those that survive in other cells. One exception is an unidentified strain of Gram-negative, rod-shaped bacteria that spontaneously infected the D strain of Amoeba proteus and came to survive inside them. These bacteria established a stable symbiotic relationship with amoebae that has resulted in phenotypic modulation of the host and mutual dependence for survival.

How many times do I have to tell you, saying something is not evidence?

The reason we know plants and animals evolved separately from eukaryotes that were neither plants nor animals are:

1. Genetic data showing the phylogenies of eukaryotes.   And we can show the method works by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.

2. Such organisms, still exist in nature.

Would you like to see that?

Not from one who accepts everything by faith alone.  If they evolved separately, the comon descent is false.  Thank you.

Love, peace, joy

 

 

 

.

 

[omega2xx]

4 hours ago, one.opinion said:

Spare the theatrics. You offer snide derision and insults with nearly every post and expect unending graciousness in return. Shameful.

Post my insults and if you are right, I will gladly  and  sincerely apologize

False. You were offered evidence from a March 2019 paper. This is not "usual evo rhetoric", but recently-published evidence. And you disdainfully yawn at it - and have the audacity to feign the high road about "true character". Rubbish.

You considering something evidence does no make it evidence. I don't remember the particulars, but  if you will post it, I will tell you why it is not evidence.  If I yawned at  it , it is because it was nothing new---a claim, with no supporting evidence.

I have never claimed I have the high road.  I am still a sinner, saved by grace alone. I may cross the line occasionally, but I never do it intentionally, and I never insult anyone just because they disagree with me. Your insult was  intentional, degrading, and self serving.

You shall  love the lord your Go with all you heart, soul, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.

Love, peace, joy

 

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

They were not examples with any verifiable scientific evidence.  Anyone can cite examples.  That does not make them valid.

He cited these:

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species — include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT be said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.

YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise.

No point in denying the fact.   If you think Dr.Wise is lying, you can easily check on every one of them.   All documented transitional series.   At some point, you're going to have to make an accommodation to reality.

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

How many times do I have to tell you, saying something is not evidence?

In this case, Dr. Jeon documents observed endosymbiosis, an important evolutionary process.   No point in denying the fact.   If he had not provided the data to the journal, it would not have published his report.

Barbarian asks:

The reason we know plants and animals evolved separately from eukaryotes that were neither plants nor animals are:

1. Genetic data showing the phylogenies of eukaryotes.   And we can show the method works by looking at the genes of organisms of known descent.

2. Such organisms, still exist in nature.

Would you like to see that?

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Not from one who accepts everything by faith alone.

I suspected you didn't really want to see evidence.    As you now realize, there is abundant evidence for common descent; even your fellow YE creationists admit it.

27 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

If they evolved separately, the comon descent is false. 

If they diverged from a common ancestor, as genetic data shows, common descent is confirmed.

Genomics Proteomics Bioinformatics. 2004 May; 2(2): 70–76.

Emerging Genomic and Proteomic Evidence on Relationships Among the Animal, Plant and Fungal Kingdoms

John W. Stiller

Abstract

Sequence-based molecular phylogenies have provided new models of early eukaryotic evolution. This includes the widely accepted hypothesis that animals are related most closely to fungi, and that the two should be grouped together as the Opisthokonta. Although most published phylogenies have supported an opisthokont relationship, a number of genes contain a tree-building signal that clusters animal and green plant sequences, to the exclusion of fungi. The alternative tree-building signal is especially intriguing in light of emerging data from genomic and proteomic studies that indicate striking and potentially synapomorphic similarities between plants and animals. This paper reviews these new lines of evidence, which have yet to be incorporated into models of broad scale eukaryotic evolution.

Here's the phylogeny of the Eukarya, based on genetic data:

 

 

 

Edited December 9, 2019 by The Barbarian

[one.opinion]

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Post my insults and if you are right

Go back and count how many times you have yawned when presented with evidence.

The two of us are wasting our time attempting to appease your requests for evidence, and instead of showing appreciation that we care enough about you to try to explain over, and over, and over, and over... you YAWN... It is dismissive, insulting, and rude.

12 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

I may cross the line occasionally, but I never do it intentionally

Hogwash. It IS ABSOLUTELY intentional.

You are not required to believe evidence when it is presented to you, but evidence is collected data that supports a particular assertion. @The Barbarian sent you evidence in the form of a scientific paper that was full of data and evidence. The paper was from 2019, it was not some "evo talking point". Just because you didn't bother to look at it, does not mean it isn't evidence.

14 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

You shall  love the lord your Go with all you heart, soul, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.

You are right. I should not have responded to your constant belligerence and rudeness with an insult of my own. You have my apology.

[omega2xx]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Barbarian suggests:

Show us a theologian of Jesus' time or an apostle who says the days are literal 24 hour days.   Hint: arguing that they meant it, when they didn't actually say it, will not work for you.

But you can't show us any evidence for it?   I've already shown you that it's absurd to call for literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.   And no, imagining a big light in sky won't help you.    You're just insisting you're right, without any reason to believe you.

I certainly have.  EVERY verse in the Bible that has a number ALWAYS means 24 hours.  Can you show  me one that doesn't?  I also showed you some verses where yom, can only refer to one day.

So when the Bible says that pi is equal to three or that God actually thought that men could build a tower that would reach heaven, those are literally true?   That's what the modern doctrine of inerrancy says.    

Let me suggest you need to do some serious Bible study, instead of believing  what some atheist  site says.  The Bible does not say what pi is.  The Bible also does not say God thought men could build a tower that could reach to heaven.  When God says they speak the same language and now nothing is  impossible for them, He was not talking abut the tower they had built, which He came down to see, and it did not reach to heaven.  He was talking about what they could do that was not good, like the time before the flood.

Love, peace, joy

 

.

 

[omega2xx]

32 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Go back and count how many times you have yawned when presented with evidence.

I have told you why I use yawn and it is not an insult.  and I disagree with what you call evidence.

The two of us are wasting our time attempting to appease your requests for evidence, and instead of showing appreciation that we care enough about you to try to explain over, and over, and over, and over... you YAWN... It is dismissive, insulting, and rude.

Neither one of you have ever presented any verifiable scientific  evidence.  You both seem to think that saying what someone has done or said is evidence.  It is not.

Hogwash. It IS ABSOLUTELY intentional.

So now you are a mind reader.  Calling it intentional is insulting and self-serving.

You are not required to believe evidence when it is presented to you, but evidence is collected data that supports a particular assertion. @The Barbarian sent you evidence in the form of a scientific paper that was full of data and evidence. The paper was from 2019, it was not some "evo talking point". Just because you didn't bother to look at it, does not mean it isn't evidence.

Post the evidenced they offered and I will show you it was not really evidence.

You are right. I should not have responded to your constant belligerence and rudeness with an insult of my own. You have my apology.

Saying I am belligerent and rude is only your opinion which makes it also an insult and a rude  .  On that basis,  have trouble accepting that it  is sincere.  However since I can't read minds, I will accept that  it is.

Love, peace and joy

 

[one.opinion]

1 minute ago, omega2xx said:

Neither one of you have ever presented any verifiable scientific  evidence.  You both seem to think that saying what someone has done or said is evidence.  It is not.

That is false. Evidence is evidence, regardless of whether or not you look at it. You seem to think that if you refuse to acknowledge evidence, that it somehow ceases to be evidence.

3 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

So now you are a mind reader.  Calling it intentional is insulting and self-serving.

Typing "YAWN" is intentionally insulting and dismissive. No way to argue that in good faith.

5 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Post the evidenced they offered and I will show you it was not really evidence.

A team led by scientists from the University of Chicago (UChicago) has published a study (“Rapid evolution of protein diversity by de novo origination in Oryza“) in Nature Ecology and Evolution that challenges one of the classic assumptions about how new proteins evolve. The research shows that random, noncoding sections of DNA can quickly evolve to produce new proteins. These de novo, or from scratch, genes provide a new, unexplored way that proteins evolve and contribute to biodiversity, according to the scientists.

https://www.genengnews.com/news/random-non-coding-dna-can-quickly-evolve-to-produce-new-proteins/

If you claim it is not evidence because it isn't a direct link to the original, peer-reviewed paper, I'll be happy to supply that for your perusal.

7 minutes ago, omega2xx said:

Saying I am belligerent and rude is only your opinion which makes it also an insult and a rude  .

No, that's an obvious fact. Regardless, Jesus Christ calls me to turn the other cheek, and I did not do that when I insulted you. For that, I sincerely apologize. I will not apologize for noting the fact that you are belligerent and rude.