Wigberto

That's right, the theory of evolution doesn't match my beliefs. Trying to reconcile my beliefs with the theory of evolution would be either dishonest or a denial of my beliefs. In fact, I even think science has a very marked atheistic tendency. There's no need for a religious explanation, because science tries to explain things without one, and it conjectures what isn't obvious. Still, as you see, we can address the issue even if it makes you unhappy. In the end, science is wrong about the origin of species, and conjectures are not evidence in themselves.

Yes, I am.

I'll use a simple analogy: We have a blue-eyed boy and a blue-eyed cat. Does that mean the cat and boy are related? Or if we see a black-eyed man and a blue-eyed boy, can we be sure that the man is not the boy's father? Following that logic, not mine, but that of the Darwinists: If a man looks like a monkey, then they are related? If you have been indoctrinated into calling these conjectures evidence, I have not.

Respiration is a process of oxidation, where the body's cells decompose and are replaced by new ones. Aging is the moment when the body's ability to renew itself diminishes. These processes are contained and defined in DNA. The fact that one organism lives longer than another, regardless of traumatic situations and the like, is genetic. The fact that an average mouse lives two years and an elephant almost 100 is because it is found in the genes of each species. In fact, in the case of humans, their cells are constantly dying, turning into dust. Even other forms of death, not aging, are determined by genes that shape the immune system or regenerative processes. Some species, for example, are capable of regenerating limbs because their genes contain this information. In theory, there could even be almost immortal organisms or much longer-lived ones if it weren't for their genes that condition them to die. Ultimately, individual or particular survival is not what governs genes. Organisms are not sufficiently adapted to survive (as individuals), but rather to live long enough for their species to proliferate through reproductive channels. Their descendants were the same deadly genes and will be exposed to death in a similar way as their ancestors. Genetic manipulation can create specimens that do not exist or cannot be observed in nature. This does not mean that the homunculus or the philosopher's stone exist in nature. Terrestrial organisms, for example, are composed of virtually the same components. If we take carbon and other biological components, biological organisms could theoretically form. The ingredients for the formation of living organisms are found in the earth. Similarly, modifying atomic nuclei (although physics is not the central issue here) is nothing more than constructing something, like someone building a chair out of wood (a material), for example, by deforming its natural shape or reshaping it. The fact that gold can be formed by modifying the atomic nuclei of mercury does not chemically link gold to mercury in nature, just as one could not say that a tree itself is a chair. A component or building material present in mercury was simply used to shape the gold, just as the wood of the tree was used for the chair. Although it may appear to be a transition from mercury to gold, it is actually a manipulation where mercury is not converted into gold, but rather a material present in mercury is used to form gold (such as the carbon present in biological organisms as fuel). This is not exactly the same. Although chemistry is not the central issue, the transmutation in question is a physical and artificial matter; and chemistry, naturally, would not allow the transition from mercury to gold. Finally, in nature, I repeat, there is no transmutation of mercury into gold, nor are there evolutionary leaps from species to other species. We're talking about observable or evidential natural phenomena. In the Big Bang, besides not being observable in itself, events are hypothesized that exceed the natural physical limits present in the observable universe. Let's focus, I think, on the naturalistic theme. The supposed natural selection depends on the supposed survival of the fit. Survival, the fundamental point of the topic, depends directly on the issue of death. I wouldn't deny that there are organisms whose populations change (let's say evolve) in order to facilitate their survival in a given environment. However, evolution doesn't give rise to new species. Unlike you, I observe that organisms have limits, and once their genes no longer allow them to change, they simply stop changing. And if, by not changing, they no longer survive the environment, then extinction occurs. I don't maintain that there are indefinite changes that, in theory, could lead to the emergence of even immortal superorganisms capable of withstanding atomic explosions, like comic book characters.

Do you think death isn't genetically transmitted? Are you one of those who think you're a programmed machine capable of opposing your natural or basic programming?

If I recall correctly, Richard Dawkins said that the first replicators somehow learned to decompose. Well, even if you don't believe his natural history, I think we've inherited death.

I believe that species change within themselves, limited to their own species (we could say they evolve), but I don't believe they originate in this way. There is no real evidence in any scientific text that one species arises from another, nor that stones are transmuted into gold.

Lack of genetic variability often leads (in humans, for example) to inbreeding depression. What I'm saying is in the context of inbreeding. This is not exactly a natural law, but it is widely observed that inbreeding is often quite negative in various species, such as humans.

So it's not the fittest who survive. Well, it's not always the fittest who survive, because it's not a natural law that the fittest always survive.

First, the point I was trying to make about C-14 wasn't its accuracy, but rather that it requires adjustments to be accurate, and that these are applied to previously known factors (obviously, it can't be adjusted based on unknown variables). Therefore, it's not a foolproof system because, just as they recognize (known) variables that stimulate variation in their results, they can't ignore the existence of undetected (unknown) variables that continue to influence the results. The known variable is nuclear testing. For other radioactive isotopes, there are no major known variables, to my knowledge, that influence their accuracy and would warrant calibration. However, they can't guarantee that none exist; they merely guarantee that they haven't detected any. To assume otherwise is to assume they know everything, and that is patently false. It seems to me that part of the basic definition of a species is that its individuals can produce fertile offspring. While you want to approach it, first, geographically, I have to clarify that it's more a matter of genetics than geography or reproductive preferences. As long as genes allow reproduction and the generation of offspring that can also reproduce with individuals of the species, they are the same species. Finally, the fossil record doesn't always follow an expected pattern (although it is very frequently found in the expected order). Specialists often offer explanations for what they call inverted layers, when layers that are supposed to be at the bottom are actually at the top. In these cases, they assume it's due to geological rather than chronological factors. However, they never seem to consider that the order of the layers is always due to geological factors. Hydrogen is number 1 on the periodic table, but the idea that hydrogen can be used to produce gold would be interesting. I had no idea. Where does it say hydrogen transmutes into gold? I'll just say that cancer is one of the best examples of selfish mutations. Well, I'll also say that most mutations don't seem to be truly advantageous, but rather irrelevant to survival. However, many are defects or diseases (like a cancer cell, for example).

It seems well known to me that, frequently, when a gene or group of genes becomes established, it does not result in fitter specimens, but rather they often present congenital diseases.While reproduction is a fundamental aspect, and therefore fertility is also crucial, it is worth mentioning again that if an organism is born with congenital pathologies, it will likely not survive long enough to reproduce.The idea of gene consolidation, or genetic competition, is incompatible with real evidence (not suspicion) for the reasons described above, which are empirically observed. Inbreeding, or gene consolidation, is not usually advantageous for the proliferation of species (with some exceptions).A selfish gene, for this and other reasons (such as one mentioned in another post), is not something that dominates in nature; otherwise, species would suffer more frequently from congenital diseases (such as domesticated species due to human selection).

Blood, the spine, and the skull—elements present in different species—could also be considered reference points that suggest evolutionary trends. However, similarly, the fact that metals present in the periodic table of chemistry are similar does not constitute sufficient evidence to claim that they come from a common ancestor, for example, an ancient elixir or an ancient stone that gave rise to them. Therefore, similarities do not constitute evidence of kinship.Whether these elements can be broken down into a common element, or whether living organisms (different species) can be traced back to a common ancestor, would be another matter. However, there is no evidence of "first replicators" in genes, so, according to an evolutionist, the common ancestor, at the genetic level, simply disappeared from the genes of the species.

We know that Carbon-14 needs to be adjusted because in "real time" they have observed how nuclear testing has influenced it. To assume that the semi-decay processes of older radioactive isotopes have been constant is still just that: an assumption. On the other hand, reproductive preferences, as in the case of the fruit fly, are not evidence of speciation. Individuals remain the same fly and can successfully reproduce with each other, if they so choose. Similarly, it would be like saying that in a predominantly short population, females begin to prefer taller men and stop reproducing with shorter men; this means we're dealing with a different, non-human species. Lack of reproductive success doesn't exclude you from the species. In China, for example, it seems the population prefers natives, but this doesn't mean the Chinese are a new species. Finally, comparing bones seems less reliable than a sketch of a criminal suspect. By comparing bones and interpreting their morphological possibilities, you end up with a suspicion, not a solved case, as you'd like the public to believe. To think that homologies are solid evidence is simply to start from a non-critical, but biased position. P.S. The fossil record doesn't seem at all comparable to what they assume, as the researchers themselves acknowledge that they don't find a large number of specimens, although they do find a considerable variety of species. To think that the planet was full of dinosaurs, when they only have a few fossilized remains in some museums, many of them incomplete, is to overstate the case.

It seems to me you were simply assuming I was implying something else. I don't think I was implying that Darwin used radiometry, which followers of Darwin's doctrine do use to try to validate his postulates.

I believe that humans in the past were aware of the changes that occur in organisms (within species boundaries). What was novel, not for Darwin, was proposing the origin of species beyond those boundaries (the jump from one species to another). What Charles Darwin proposed was a natural war for survival, where some die (or become extinct) and others survive. In Darwin's time, radiometric dating (uranium-lead, potassium-argon, etc.) did not exist, nor had genetics been developed as it is today. In Darwin's time, a fossil record existed, and the assumption of faunal succession proposed by geologist William Smith could be made.

You generally address the issue, but we disagree on the understanding of the fossil record. For me, the fossil record is incomplete evidence, filled with assumptions rather than facts. You assume geological periods; however, you cannot deny that these assumptions are based on radiometric dating and biased assumptions such as faunal succession (which does not always meet the desired expectations). A quick example: Darwin himself recognized the diversity of species that can inhabit one habitat relative to another (the Galapagos and Australia would be examples). Why think that fossil organisms predate other species, rather than thinking that they are different organisms from different habitats, like those of the Galapagos? It's also a hypothesis that a meteorite caused a mass (global) extinction at some point. There isn't enough evidence to confirm this, but there seems to be enough to speculate about it. What I want to clarify is that there is no evidence of the origin of species through evolution, and since this is clearly not observed today, nor throughout history, their last resort is to entrench themselves in the fossil record and give it the interpretations that best fit their claims. This isn't evidence in itself, just a sketch of a suspect; this is suspicion. So, you understand, I can't tell you what species dominated the Earth after the dinosaurs, because I doubt that dinosaurs preceded other current species (such as echidnas, mosquitoes, cockroaches, coelacanths, etc.), and I also question whether, in fact, there was any dominance of dinosaurs (or chickens) on the planet. An individual who dies before it can reproduce cannot reproduce; the theory of evolution depends on survival. I have said that species depend on reproduction, not individual survival. If selfish genes truly prevailed in nature, it would logically follow that there would be no organisms whose existence is focused on reproduction, but rather more like cancer, which tries to survive at all costs. In nature, the healthiest individuals often advance in the group and are the first to die because they are at greater risk. The weak and naturally sick individuals who lag behind, then, have a chance of surviving and reproducing.

In nature, the fittest don't always survive long enough; they often die. Yes, the weakest or most vulnerable die more often, but they aren't necessarily the least fit. A wounded animal, the favorite prey of an average predator, isn't always the least fit, but rather has met an unfavorable fate. Being a baby animal doesn't mean being less genetically fit, but rather being in a vulnerable situation. Many predators prefer babys. Natural selection as proposed by Darwinism does not exist. In reality, there are simply species designed to proliferate in the environment. No terrestrial organism actually survives; they all die. Species (individual organisms of each species) are not designed to survive in the environment, but rather to reproduce. This is a natural reality, as is the fact that acquired traits exist, but are probably not inherited. Thus, changes between biological organisms exist (you could call it evolution), but they do not give rise to species.