1 minute ago, Wigberto said:

There is no real evidence in any scientific text that one species arises from another, nor that stones are transmuted into gold.

Packicetus > Ambulocetus > Kutchicetus > Dorudon - later whale diversification

I recommend watching this video: https://youtu.be/8cn0kf8mhS4?si=mDwwkf5ei_-bjvpV

10 minutes ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

What does inbreeding have to do with evolution? What are you basing this off of Adam and Eve?

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.

Just now, Wigberto said:

Well, even if you don't believe his natural history, I think we've inherited death.

My friend I don’t think you understand inherited traits at all 💀

1 minute ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

My friend I don’t think you understand inherited traits at all 💀

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?

12 minutes ago, Wigberto said:

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?

Such things as rough mortality dates are with genetics, death itself isn’t genetically transmitted what are you reading 💀

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

There is no real evidence in any scientific text that one species arises from another, nor that stones are transmuted into gold.

Gold can be created in nuclear reactors..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Synthesis

3 hours ago, Wigberto said:

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

None of this has anything to do with the subject topic. Are you going to respond to the specific points regarding natural selection?

The "Manchester" moth is another great example and very easy to see how the environment acts on a population and natural selection plays out.

10 hours ago, Wigberto said:

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?

Hydrogen was the first element to exist, the rest occurred during fusion processes of hydrogen and subsequently heavier combinations within stars and their supernova.

Edited June 21Jun 21 by StringJunky

34 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Hydrogen was the first element to exist, the rest occurred during fusion processes of hydrogen and subsequently heavier combinations within stars and their supernova.

Helium and a trace amount of Lithium were also created in the Big Bang (which the OP may not accept as being true, either)

15 hours ago, Sohan Lalwani said:

Such things as rough mortality dates are with genetics, death itself isn’t genetically transmitted what are you reading 💀

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.

11 hours ago, Sensei said:

Gold can be created in nuclear reactors..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals#Gold

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold#Synthesis

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.

6 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Hydrogen was the first element to exist, the rest occurred during fusion processes of hydrogen and subsequently heavier combinations within stars and their supernova.

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.

12 hours ago, pinball1970 said:

None of this has anything to do with the subject topic. Are you going to respond to the specific points regarding natural selection?

The "Manchester" moth is another great example and very easy to see how the environment acts on a population and natural selection plays out.

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.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

Helium and a trace amount of Lithium were also created in the Big Bang (which the OP may not accept as being true, either)

Right.

1 hour ago, Wigberto said:

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.

Moderator Note

When given evidence "on the naturalistic theme", you ignored it in favor of many tangents and red herrings. We're just not going to do this dance anymore, Wigberto. You claim to want evidence, then you use every tired creationist argument and tactic to brush off the rest of the people in the conversation. We have rules against all of this, including the soapbox stance you've been taking on a subject you clearly know nothing about.

Thread closed. Don't try this crap again.